ÉIGSE

A JOURNAL OF IRISH STUDIES

EDITED BY PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH

VOLUME XXXIII

PUBLISHED BY THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF

2002

CONTENTS Page

THE OLDEST STORY OF THE LAIGIN: OBSERVATIONS ON ORGAIN DENNA RÍG.Tomás Ó Cathasaigh ...... 1 FÉLIRE ÓENGUSSO: PROBLEMS OF DATING A MONUMENT OF . David N. Dumville ...... 19 BAILE IN SCÁIL AND BAILE BRICÍN. Murray ...... 49 CARMAN, SITE OF ÓENACH CARMAIN: A PROPOSED LOCATION. Diarmuid Ó Murchadha ...... 57 EARLY IRISH CÉIR ‘BEE’S WAX’. Alexander Falileyev ...... 71 ANEW OLD IRISH GLOSS IN A MUNICH . Dáibhí Ó Cróinín ...... ……………… 75 ASEVENTEENTH-CENTURY ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH UÍ DHOMHNAILL. Pádraig A. Breatnach ...... 77 TÉAMAÍ TAIGHDE NUA-GHAEILGE: ERRATA. P. A. Breatnach ...... 172 GLAC BHEAG FOCAL. Seán Ua Súilleabháin ...... 173 AR MHUINTIR LAIDHE. Tomás Ó Con Cheanainn ... 179 Ó CUÍV (1916-1999). Tomás Ó Con Cheanainn ...... 227 R. A. BREATNACH (1911-2001). Seán Ó Coileáin ...... 229

LÉIRMHEAS Pádraig Ó Macháin: The Scribe in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth- Century Ireland: Motivations and Milieu (Ní Úrdail) 233; Tomás Ó Con Cheanainn: Stairsheanchas Mhicil Chonraí: Ón Máimín go Ráth Chairn (Ó Giollagáin) 237; T. M. Charles-Edwards: Early Irish Farming: a Study Based Mainly on the Law-Texts of the 7th and 8th Centuries (Kelly) 241; Pádraig P. Ó Néill: Organization in Ireland A.D. 650 to 1000 (Etchingham) 243; Thomas Owen Clancy: Conversing with Angels and Ancients: Literary Myths of Medieval Ireland (Nagy) 245; Pádraig P. Ó Néill: A Single Ray of Sun: Religious Speculation in Early Ireland (Carey) 251; The Celtic Monk: Rules and Writings of Early Irish Monks (Ó Maidín) 253; Meidhbhín Ní Úrdail: Béarrach Mná ag Caint (eag. Verling) 255; John Carey: Ireland and Scandinavia in the Early Viking Age (ed. Clarke, Ní Mhaonaigh & Ó Floinn) 258; Caoimhín Breatnach: Celts and Vikings. Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium of Societas Celtologica Nordica (ed. Josephson) 261; Caoimhín Breatnach: Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie, Band 48 (1996) 264; Pádraig A. Breatnach: Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie, Band 49-50 (1997) 265; Pádraig P. Ó Néill: Text and Gloss: Studies in Insular Learning and Literature Presented to Donovan Pheifer (ed. Conrad- O’Briain, D’Arcy & Scattergood) 268; N. J. A. Williams: Illustrated Gaelic-English (Dwelly); The Essential Gaelic-English Dictionary: a Dictionary for Students and Learners of (Watson) 268. THE OLDEST STORY OF THE LAIGIN: OBSERVATIONS ON ORGAIN DENNA RêG

THE EARLY Irish saga Orgain Denna Ríg ‘The destruction of Dind Ríg’ (henceforth ODR),1 tells how, in prehistoric times, Labraid of Leinster killed Cobthach Cóel, king of Brega, at Dind Ríg (near Leighlinbridge in Co. Carlow), in revenge for the slaying of Labraid’s father and grandfather. It is the origin-legend of the Laigin: in the twelfth-century manuscript Rawlinson B 502 it is the first item in the Scélshenchas Lagen ‘The narrative historical lore of Leinster’, and is described there as cetna scel Lagen 7 tuus a ngliad ‘the oldest story of the Laigin and the beginning of their fights’. Cobthach Cóel and Labraid are remote ancestors respectively of the Uí Néill and the Laigin, and ODR nar- rates the origin and early stages of a feud between them which was to last for many centuries and which is a dominant theme in the abundant early literature of Leinster. The account in Lebor Gabála Éirenn of the events which led to the slaying of Cobthach at Dind Ríg is accompa- nied by the observation Is ó shein ille atá cocad eter Leth Cuind 7 Laigniu ‘it is from that time until now that there is warfare between Conn’s Half and Leinster’ (LL, line 2794). Various events which marked this feud are related in verse as well as prose. Rawlinson B 502 contains a series of poems under the title Laídshenchas Laigen ‘The historical lore of Leinster in verse’, which is the subject of a recent study by Edel Bhreathnach (2000). Poems of this kind also occur in the : one of them begins with the words Échta Lagen for Leth Cuinn ‘The exploits of Leinster against Conn’s Half’ (LL, lines 6980-7099), an incipit which reflects a Leinster view of the feud. Échta Lagen for Leth Cuinn, which refers to the Laigin as clanna Labrada Longsich ‘Labraid Longsech’s descendants’ (line 6983), begins with Labraid’s slaying of Cobthach i mBrudin Tuamma Tenbath ‘in the Bruiden of Tuaim Tenbath’ and, as Mac Cana (1980:28) has pointed out, seems in its original form to have ended with the victory of the Laigin over the

1 Edited and translated by Stokes (1901). This has been partly superseded by Greene (1955), which is now the standard edition, but it should be noted that Stokes is more generous in the citation of variant readings. Translations in the present arti- cle are my own, except when otherwise stated; references are to the lines of Greene’s edition. The Book of Leinster text is available in the diplomatic edition (LL) Vol V, pp 1192-4; it can also be read online (see note 2). The Rawlinson B 502 text can be consulted in the facsimile (, 1909). The tale is summarised and partly trans- lated by Dillon (1946), and O’Brien (1954) translates the greater part of it. The text as edited by Greene is discussed and translated into French by Vendryes (1958-9). 2TOMÁS Ó CATHASAIGH invading Uí Néill at the Battle of Allen in 722. In Rawlinson B 502 are told that Bruiden Tuamma Tenbad was another name for ODR (Greene 1955:17), and in a poem attributed to Ferchertne, and which is included in the saga, Tuaim Tenbath is said to have been the earlier name for Dind Ríg (lines 454-5). In Cath Almaine, the saga dealing with the Battle of Allen, the Uí Néill are entertained on the night before the battle by the royal fool Úa Maigleine, who ‘pro- ceeds to tell them of the battles and contests of Leth Cuinn and the Laigin, from the Destruction of Tuaim Tenbath, that is of Dind Ríg, in which Cobthach Cáel of Brega was slain, up to that time’ (rogab- saide oc innisin chath ocus chomrama Leithe Cuinn ocus Laigen ó Thogail Tuama Tenbath, .i. Denna Ríg, in romarbad Cobthach Cáel- breg conice in n-aimsir-sin, Ó Riain 1978: lines 66-9). This tale, and the events depicted in it, was of crucial significance to the way in which the Laigin saw their early history. ODR is found in three , Rawlinson B 502 (R, twelfth century), the Book of Leinster (L, also twelfth century), and YBL (Y, in the part of the manuscript written by Giolla êosa Mac Fhir Bhisigh about the year 1392). Stokes (1901) made L the basis of his edition, since it is ‘slightly fuller’ than the others. Greene (1955) followed suit, presumably for the same reason, but he adopted a number of readings from R. His editorial policy was to follow one manuscript (in this case L), ‘departing from it only when there was another read- ing which was more archaic or gave better sense’ (1955: p. v). He observed that ‘the three manuscripts point to a common source, although R often diverges verbally from LY in a way which is explic- able only by assuming oral transmission’ (1955:16). Tomás Ó Con- cheanainn (1986), on the other hand, suggests that R is the only independent manuscript of the text, that L was copied from R, and that Y was copied from L but with sporadic readings taken directly from R. I suspect that the filiation of the texts is somewhat more complicated than that, but Ó Concheanainn’s discussion clearly establishes two things: ‘(1) the older character of R as opposed to the later, and closely agreeing, L and Y; (2) the occasional, but striking, agreement of R and Y against L’ (Ó Concheanainn 1986: 16). The relative fullness of L as compared with R arises from the fact that the scribe of the latter includes only the opening phrases of two verse passages that are found in full in L (and Y). As Ó Con- cheanainn observes, ‘the reason for the scribal curtailment was sim- ply economy of effort: the two passages in question are to be found earlier in the MS’ (1986:15). THE OLDEST STORY OF THE LAIGIN 3 ODR is a tale of considerable interest, both for its form and for its content. While Rawlinson B 502 draws a distinction between Scélshenchas and Laídshenchas, ODR is written in a mixture of prose and verse. It is, in fact, a singularly interesting specimen of prosimetrum, and in the latter part of this article I will consider this facet of ODR, and also the rhetoric of the tale, with particular refer- ence to the replication of incidents. First, however, I want to look at the political content of ODR, not, I need hardly say, in relation to actual historical events, but rather with regard to the claims that are made in the tale. It will be useful at this point to give a brief sum- mary of it: Cobthach Cóel, king of Brega, slays his brother Lóegaire Lorc, variously described as king of Leinster and king of Ireland, and Lóegaire’s son Ailill Áine, who became king of Leinster after his father’s death. Cobthach takes the kingship of Leinster for himself, and banishes Ailill’s son Labraid ‘out of Ireland’. Accompanied by the poet Ferchertne and the musician Craiphtine, Labraid goes to the land of Scoriath, king of the Fir Morca in West Munster. Moriath, the king’s daughter, falls in love with Labraid, who wins her by means of Craiphtine’s music, which sends her watchers to sleep. Thereafter Labraid marches with an army of Munstermen to Dind Ríg. Craiphtine’s music puts the men who are defending the fortress to sleep, and the fortress is captured, its defenders slaughtered and Dind Ríg destroyed. But Labraid and Cobthach make peace, and Labraid becomes king of Leinster and settles at Dind Ríg. There he secretly builds a house of iron. He invites Cobthach to a feast, and he comes accompanied by thirty other kings. They enter the iron house, and Labraid burns them all to death. The political content of three parts of this sequence of events will concern me in what follows. I shall look first at the initial situation and at the status at that stage of Cobthach Cóel and Lóegaire Lorc respectively. Then I shall look briefly at the political implications of Labraid’s sojourn in Munster. Finally, and especially, I want to dis- cuss the happenings at Dind Ríg and the relative status, at the time of the fateful feast, of the host, Labraid, and of his guest and victim, Cobthach Cóel.

THE INITIAL SITUATION

In Greene’s edition ODR opens as follows:

Boí Cobthach Cóel Breg mac Úgaine Móir i rríge Breg. Baí 4TOMÁS Ó CATHASAIGH dano Loegaire Lorc mac Úgaine i rríge Laigen. Ba formtech Cobthach fri Loegaire im ríge Laigen, corra gaib sergg2 7 galar ú ú de coro súergg a fuil 7 a feóil de, conid de ro boí Cóel Breg fair- sium (lines 304-8).

Cobthach Cóel Breg son of Úgaine Mór was king of Brega, while Lóegaire Lorc son of Úgaine was king of Leinster. Cobthach envied Lóegaire the kingship of Leinster, so that decline and disease afflicted him, and his blood and his flesh wasted away; and that is why he was called Cobthach Cóel Breg (Cobthach the Slender One of Brega).

RY and L differ in one important respect in this passage. In RY the office held by Lóegaire Lorc and coveted by Cobthach was the king- ship of Leinster, whereas in L it was the kingship of Ireland. L thus makes a political claim which is not reflected in RY. Greene adopted the reading of RY in view of the agreement of all manuscripts that after the slaying of Lóegaire’s son Ailill, Cobthach assumed the kingship of Leinster (iar sin ro gab-som ríge Lagen, line 332). Ó Concheanainn (1986:19) agrees with Greene’s decision here, saying that R’s Lagen ‘clearly represents the original text’.3 He suggests that the substitution in L of ‘Ireland’ for ‘Leinster’ ‘may have been in the interest of Leinster propaganda.’ It has to be said that Greene made the wrong editorial decision, either in the opening sequence or at line 330. The latter comes imme- diately after Lóegaire’s death at Cobthach’s hands. We are told that Lóegaire left a son named Ailill Áine. Then comes a sentence which is represented in the MSS as follows:

L: Ro gabside ríge Lagen (LL, line 35232). R: Congabside Laigneo fris afrithise (Meyer 1909: 130, lines 38-9). Y: Rogabsidhi Laigin fris arisi4 (YBL, col. 754).

Greene retains the reading of L, which can be translated ‘He assumed / seized the kingship of Leinster’, whereas R means some- thing like ‘And he took Leinster back from him’ (more literally ‘back

2 LL (line 35215) has fergg here, but the manuscript has sergg, as can be seen on the ISOS site [http://www.isos.dcu.ie/]. 3 His suggestion that ro gab-side ríge Lagen in line 332 refers to Lóegaire is a slip. 4 So correct Stokes’s arisin. THE OLDEST STORY OF THE LAIGIN 5 in opposition to him’). The notion of taking Leinster back is consis- tent with the statement in R (and Y) that Cobthach killed Lóegaire because he envied him the kingship of Leinster, and serves to con- firm what is in any case implicit, which is that Cobthach would have attempted to seize the office once he had killed its holder. In L, on the other hand, the first mention of the kingship of Leinster is in con- nection with Ailill Áine, so that there is no place there for afrithise ‘back’. In this matter, then, R and L differ, but each of them is inter- nally consistent. If the scribe of L has indeed changed the text in the interest of Leinster propaganda, which is quite likely, he has also taken care to change his account of Ailill’s action. Having chosen to follow R in the opening passage, Greene should also have followed it in the sequel. In according Lóegaire the kingship of Ireland, L concurs with the text of Lebor Gabála which is preserved in the same manuscript. O’Rahilly (1946:105) begins his summary of this latter account as follows: ‘Cobthach, king of Ireland, teacherously slew Loegaire Lorc, and likewise Ailill Áine, and banished Labraid “beyond the sea”.’ In one important respect, this gives a misleading impression of what is being summarised. In the relevant part of LG, Cobthach Cóel and Lóegaire Lorc are introduced as sons of Úgaine Mór, Cobthach’s descendants are mentioned, and then the text continues as follows:

Baí Cobthach .l. bliadan i rrige Herend 7 ro marb húa a brathar é .i. Labraid Longsech. Loegaire Lorc imÐ féin is é ro gab ríge n˙Herend iar nUgaine Mór coro marb Cobthach Cael Breg é tria mebail. & dano ro marb in Cobthach cetna a mac in Loegairesin .i. Ailill Áne (LL, lines 2787-91).

Cobthach was king of Ireland for fifty years, and his brother’s grandson, Labraid Loingsech, killed him. As for Lóegaire Lorc himself, he assumed the kingship after Úgaine Mór, until Cobthach Cóel Breg killed him treacherously, and furthermore the same Cobthach killed Lóegaire’s son Ailill Áine.

Two things are clear in this account: first, Lóegaire Lorc is supposed to have succeeded his father as king of Ireland, and secondly, Cobthach cannot have become king of Ireland until after he had slain Lóegaire. In ODR only L makes Lóegaire king of Ireland. On the other hand, all three manuscripts are at one in describing Cobthach as king of Brega at the beginning of the tale, and in describing him 6TOMÁS Ó CATHASAIGH as king of Ireland only after he has slain Lóegaire and Ailill and taken the kingship of Leinster for himself. One other thing has happened before he is designated king of Ireland in the tale: he has celebrated the Feast of Tara, which the ‘men of Ireland’ were invited to enjoy (lines 338-53). It will not be necessary here to go into the controversial aspects of Feis Temro,5 for we can assume that in this context the purpose of the feast is to mark Cobthach’s achievement of the kingship of Tara and hence of the ‘kingship of Ireland’. That he is not altogether deserving of the office is clear when, in the course of the feast, Craiphtine and Ferchertne decline to tell him that he is the most generous person in Ireland. They nevertheless acknowledge him as ‘king of Ireland’ when, hav- ing been exiled by him, they speak about him to their host in Munster (line 359).

LABRAID’S SOJOURN IN MUNSTER

It will already be clear that ODR is not the only account of the events which it describes. In his analysis of the various extant accounts of Labraid’s contention with Cobthach, T. F. O’Rahilly (1946:101-17) showed that ODR differed from all the others in two important ways. The first of these has to do with Labraid’s exile: in ODR the whole action of the story takes place in Ireland, but the others say that Cobthach banished Labraid from Ireland and that Labraid spent some time overseas. The second feature which is peculiar to ODR is that ‘the capture of Dinn Ríg and the death of Cobthach in Dinn Ríg are treated as separate incidents’ (O’Rahilly 1946:109). It may be, as I shall suggest presently, that the author of ODR was aware of the tradition of Labraid’s exile overseas; he may also have known a ver- sion of the story that had a single destruction of Dind Ríg in the course of which Cobthach was put to death. If his account of Labraid’s exile is indeed a revision of an earlier one, it is to his credit that he carried it out relatively adroitly. (The significance and rhetor- ical value of the second destruction will concern us later.) Cobthach commands Labraid and his companions to leave Ireland, but Labraid’s response is that if they cannot find a place for themselves in Ireland they will indeed leave it. And so when they are banished they go westwards on Ferchertne’s advice and they are received by the Fir Morca in West Munster. The author of ODR shows Labraid 5 See recently Bhreathnach 1996: 82-6, Etchingham 1996: 131-3, and Jaski 2000: 214-17. THE OLDEST STORY OF THE LAIGIN 7 to have been banished from Ireland, but to have found a haven within it, in defiance of Cobthach’s command. Why should the author have located the Fir Morca in West Munster? The Fir Morca are not known to history, and since the place of Labraid’s exile is elsewhere said to have been in Gaul, O’Rahilly plausibly explains tír Fer Morca or crích Fher Morca as ‘an early popular corruption of tír (or crích) *Armorca, a borrowing of Lat. Armorica’(1946:113). But while this may be so, it is not to say that O’Rahilly is correct in describing the author’s location of Fir Morca in Munster as ‘a mere blunder on his part’: ‘the author did not know where the Fir Morca dwelt; and as their name looked like an Irish one he chose to locate them in the remote region of West Munster’ (1946:113). But this author has consulted and used a num- ber of sources in the construction of his narrative, and he can hardly have been unaware of the tradition that Labraid spent some time in exile overseas. Indeed in one of the quatrains cited by him from a poem by Orthanach Úa Cóellámha he is described as mac meic Loegaire din lind ‘Lóegaire’s grandson from the sea’ (line 451). The author of ODR may have wished to suggest a certain degree of defi- ance in Labraid’s character, but on the political level his motivation may well have been the propagandistic one of providing Labraid with Munster allies in his opposition to Cobthach. And so it is that Labraid brings an army of the men of Munster (sluagad fer Muman, line 396) with him when he returns to Leinster to destroy the fort at Dind Ríg.

RECHTAS AND LÁNRÍGE

There are two destructions at Dind Ríg according to ODR, and indeed the first of them is described as in c[h]étorcain (line 397); this entails the destruction of the fortress at Dind Ríg (coro hort in dún ‘and the fortress was destroyed’, line 404; similarly line 410). Cob- thach, we may assume, was not in the fortress at the time, as he sur- vived the destruction, and he went on to make peace with Labraid. This part of the text is as follows:

Ro gab-som didiu ríge Lagen iar sin 7 batar hi córe 7 Cobthach, ocus is and ro boí a s˙ossad-som, i nDind Ríg. Rechtus immorro ro gab-som 7 lánríge la Cobthach. Ro-chuirestar iarum Cobthach do dénum a menman 7 do airiuc thuile dó (lines 412- 16). 8TOMÁS Ó CATHASAIGH The first and last of these three sentences pose no difficulty and can be translated respectively: ‘Then Labraid became king of Leinster, and he was at peace with Cobthach, and his residence was at Dinn Ríg;’ and ‘Labraid afterwards invited Cobthach to come and enjoy himself and be entertained.’ The second sentence in the passage is less straightforward. Greene reads rechtus with R, where L and Y have fechtus. It is difficult to make anything out of the latter reading. Stokes translated ‘Once upon a time, however, when he had taken it, and Cobthach had the full kingship …’, but this entails a strained (and almost certainly ungrammatical) run on into the next sentence which contains the adverb iarum ‘afterwards’. It seems as if this is one of the many cases in which R preserves the better reading, but I think that the sentence in R has been misconstrued in the two trans- lations of it that are known to me. Greene gives ‘authority’ as the meaning of rechtus in his Vocabulary, but he does not translate or otherwise comment upon the sentence. Vendryes (1958-9:17) trans- lates ‘Cobthach lui reconnut autorité et pleine royauté’, and Sims- Williams (1991:54) essentially agrees: ‘He got authority and full kingship from Cobthach.’ In interpreting this sentence we must attend to the (relative) ro gab-som, which echoes the (non-relative) ro gab-som of the preced- ing sentence: Ro gab-som didiu ríge Lagen … Rechtus immorro ro gab-som … The second of these is either a modification or an ampli- fication of the first; immorro can have adversative or emphasising force (DIL I 159. 31, 160.9), so that we can translate it either as ‘however’ or ‘moreover, besides’. What is decisive, I think, is the second part 7 lánríge la Cobthach. The translations by Vendryes and Sims-Williams imply a clefting of *Ro gab-som rechtus 7 lánríge la Cobthach, which would mean ‘He got authority and full kingship from Cobthach’.6 But in that case one would expect that rechtus 7 lánríge would be fronted as a unit, yielding *Rechtus 7 lánríge ro gab-som la Cobthach. As it stands, it seem to me that the sentence draws a contrast between rechtus and lánríge, indicating that Labraid got the former and Cobthach held (or retained) the latter. Immorro, then, is adversative here and can be translated ‘however’. I therefore take the meaning of the sentence to be ‘It was rechtas, however, that he assumed and Cobthach had the full kingship.’ The modification that is made by immorro here is a qualification rather than a

6 For this use of gaibid with la cf. Gabais caille la patric ‘[she] took the veil from Patrick’ (i.e. was professed by Patrick), cited (and so explained) DIL L 7.63, from the . THE OLDEST STORY OF THE LAIGIN 9 contradiction, since Labraid’s rechtus is contrasted not with his own ríge but with Cobthach’s lánríge. In other words, Labraid did indeed achieve kingship, but it was a kingship which entailed rechtas rather than full kingship. What, then, is rechtas? This poorly attested word is obviously an abstract from recht ‘law’ (for the etymology of which see McCone 1998:10). According to DIL (s.v.), it means ‘authority, administra- tion’; that it can denote the office of rechtaire seems to be implicit in a version of the Birth of mac Airt (Genemain Chormaic) in which Cormac is said to have rewarded the Fir Chúl Breg for their services to him by giving them land in Brega and the rechtas of Tara (Hull 1952:84, line 89). Since Cormac himself is king of Tara, rech- tas cannot here refer to a subordinate form of kingship. Ó Corráin (1986:147) is surely correct in taking it to be the ‘stew- ardship of Tara’. The rechtaire, conventionally translated ‘steward’ or ‘major-domo’, was the chief officer of the king, and it must have been this office which Cormac bestowed upon the Fir Chúl Breg. In ODR, however, rechtas is used in the context of the subordina- tion of one king to another. The model of kingship which is envis- aged here finds clarification in a passage in the dindshenchas. A carefully crafted quatrain in the poem which Gwynn (1903: 38-45) published as ‘Temair V’ reads as follows: Ce beith ós Banbai brainig / ríg amrai, ard a medair, / ní fhuil rechtas ríg foraib / acht a ríg techtas Temair (lines 69-73). Gwynn translates, ‘Though there be over imperial Banba / famous kings Ð high their mirth! / no kingly authority is binding on them / save from the king that possesses Temair.’ Implicit in this is a threefold hierarchy of kings, in which the lowest of the three (the ríg amrai here) would in some sense be subject to the authority of a king of the second rank who in turn would receive his right to exercise that authority from the king of Tara; if the authority were not granted by the king of Tara it could not be exercised at all. In the light of this quatrain, the claim in ODR would seem to be that the authority exercised by Labraid as king of Leinster had been granted to him by Cobthach. This notion is very far from the view of kingship which is expressed in the Irish laws. On the other hand Ó Corráin (1978: 29) has noted, among the later developments in the office of rechtaire, that great kings make use of subject petty-kings to fill the office. It is true that Labraid is no petty- king; moreover, the relevant development in the office of rechtaire is dated by Ó Corráin to the eleventh and twelfth centuries, whereas ODR is said to have been given its present form ‘not much earlier 10 TOMÁS Ó CATHASAIGH than the beginning of the tenth century’ (Greene 1955: 17). Nevertheless, the arrangement which, according to ODR, was put in place after the first destruction at Dind Ríg is analagous to that in which the subordinate king is seen as the rechtaire of the over-king. When Labraid invited Cobthach to the fateful feast in the iron house at Dind Ríg, it was an invitation to an over-king. Patrick Sims- Williams has written of ‘the custom of erecting temporary houses for important personages, whether over-kings or simply honoured guests, as seen in literary texts like Bricriu’s Feast, The Destruction of Dinn Ríg, and Tromdám Guaire’ (1991: 56). He points out (1991: 54) that the episode in ODR is a ‘close analogue’ to that in Branwen in which the Irish build a house for Bendigeidfran. His reading of the text (and that of Vendryes) led him to the view that ‘it is the over-king Labraid, not the submissive Cobthach, who builds the house, the reverse of the position alleged for Bendigeidfran’ (Sims-Williams 1991: 55). The interpretation that has been proposed here removes this discrepancy. Labraid redeems his honour in the slaughter of Cobthach Cóel; this, at any rate, is his mother’s view (line 441). His primary motiva- tion must have been to avenge the kin-slaying of his grandfather and father by Cobthach. But he would also have been anxious to rid him- self (and Leinster) of the indignity of his position as holder of rech- tas when Cobthach held lánríge. This primeval rejection of the claims of an ancestor of the Uí Néill to superior kingship is presented in the literature as an exemplary act, and it was replicated by many historical kings of Leinster who claimed descent from Labraid.

ODR AS PROSIMETRUM AND FERCHERTNE’S ROLE

There are four sequences of verse in ODR. The first comprises four lines of rhymeless alliterative verse, beginning Ní ceilt céis ceól do chruit Chraiphtini ‘The céis concealed no music from the harp of Craiphtine’ (lines 384-87); they are spoken by Ferchertne after Labraid and Moriath have made love. Scoriath, having been informed by his wife that their daughter shows symptoms of having slept with a man, demands that his and poets discover the identity of the lover. When they fail to do so, he turns to Ferchertne and threatens to kill him if he does not tell him who is involved. At Labraid’s bidding, Ferchertne obeys the king’s command and reveals that it was Labraid who made love to the young woman when Craiphtine’s music had put the company to sleep. In the last line he praises Labraid, saying that ‘he is greater than any price’. THE OLDEST STORY OF THE LAIGIN 11 (Ferchertne then repeats in plain prose the accusation he has just made in verse.) The king, as we know, is happy to accept Labraid as a husband for his daughter, but this occurs only after Ferchertne has solemnly revealed the identity of the person who, after all, has thwarted the best efforts of Scoriath and his wife to shield Moriath from all men. What is going on here is essentially a trial, and the king duly gives his judgement, which is favourable to Labraid, after he has heard what Ferchertne has to say. A second quatrain, attributed to the poet mac Lonáin, begin- ning Feib con-attail Moriath múad ‘When proud (?) Moriath slept’ (lines 408-11), briefly recapitulates in syllabic verse the events of the first destruction at Dind Ríg, which have been recounted in detail in the preceding prose. The tale is ‘rounded off’, as Mac Cana (1997: 109) puts it, by two verse passages. The first of these comprises two quatrains of syllabic verse dealing in turn with Cobthach’s slaying of Lóegaire Lorc and Labraid’s killing of Cobthach and his company of thirty kings. These quatrains are not attributed to a named author in ODR, but they are identified as a quotation by the phrase unde dicitur, and in fact they are taken from the poem A chóicid choín Chairpri crúaid, ascribed to Orthanach Ua Cóelláma, an early-ninth-century bishop of Kildare (O Daly 1961-3). The opening line of Orthanach’s poem, ‘Fair province of stern Cairbre’, is addressed to Leinster; the poem is devoted to the battles fought by Leinstermen, and in Rawlinson B 502 is appropriately included in the Laídshenchas Laigen. The tale ends with a poem in rhymeless alliterative verse attrib- uted to Ferchertne, beginning Dind Ríg / ropo Thúaim Tenbath ‘Dind Ríg was (formerly) Túaim Tenbath’. This poem, which (like the other verse passage attributed to Ferchertne in ODR) is also pre- served in the genealogies, has received a good deal of attention; its most recent editor notes that the text in ODR ‘differs in many points from the text in the genealogies, and the two versions should not be conflated’ (Corthals 1990: 117). It briefly describes Labraid’s actions at Dind Ríg, gives some details of his genealogy and names some of those who were killed along with Cobthach. When we look at the function of the verse passages in ODR, it is clear that the passage in which Ferchertne identifies Labraid as the illicit lover of Moriath stands apart from the others in that it is a solemn utterance which belongs integrally to the course of events recounted in the saga, whereas the others can be assigned to the type which Mac Cana (1997: 111) describes as ‘evidential’, and which he 12 TOMÁS Ó CATHASAIGH characterises as follows: ‘It serves to corroborate what has been told or mentioned in the preceding prose and consequently, if specifically ascribed, it is generally attributed to well-known poet-scholars.’ A distinction may be made, however, within the evidential verse of ODR. Whereas Flann mac Lonáin and Orthanach Ua Cóelláma are indeed poet-scholars who furnish retrospective accounts of the events they describe, Ferchertne is represented as an eyewitness. He has already participated in the events of ODR as eulogist, counsel- lor, and (in effect) officer of the court. His first appearance is at the Feast of Tara (lines 338-53), when the men of Ireland are gathered together and the eulogists (int aes admolta) are out on the floor ‘praising the king and the queen and the princes and the lords’. They evidently do not praise Cobthach quite as highly as he wishes for he proceeds to ask if they know who is the most generous person in Ireland. Craiphtine and Ferchertne both say that Labraid is the most generous, with the result that Cobthach expels them along with Labraid. It is Ferchertne who tells Labraid that they should go west- wards on a path which, in the event, leads to the court of Scoriath. We have seen the role that he played in Labraid’s winning of Moriath, a role which complements that of Craiphtine. Ferchertne and Craiphtine, two members of the óes dána, play important parts in Labraid’s life. Craiphtine is the more prominent of the two. He is the first to respond to Cobthach’s question about the most generous person in Ireland, and when Cobthach decides to expel Labraid, it is (surprisingly) the harpist rather than the poet who makes the portentous pronouncement: ‘He will be none the worse for that, and you will be none the better’ (line 350). The magical efficacy of Craiphtine’s music is crucial in the wooing episode and in the first destruction at Dind Ríg. But Ferchertne has the last word: when Cobthach arrives at Dind Ríg in response to Labraid’s invitation he declines to enter the iron house until he has been preceded by Labraid’s fool and Labraid’s mother (lines 422-3). Ferchertne is not required to enter the house, and as someone who witnesses the destruction and lives to tell the tale, it is tempting to call him the scéola orgne. Thurneysen (1917:34) took scéola as an io-stem meaning ‘Zeuge, Berichterstatter’, which presumably gives the sense in the reverse order of its historical development. In DIL (s.v.) the meaning is given as ‘newsbringer, survivor (of a battle)’. The sense ‘storyteller, newsbringer’ is in all probability the primary one; if it comes to mean ‘survivor’, this must arise from the well-attested association of the word with orgain, both in collocation with the THE OLDEST STORY OF THE LAIGIN 13 genitive (sceola / sciula orcne occurs twice in Cormac’s Glossary, Meyer 1913:28), and in a sentence such as ní gnáth orgain cen scéola n-eisi do innisin scél dara n-éisi, which occurs in Scél Tuáin meic Chairill, and which John Carey (1984:105) translates, ‘it is not usual for there to be a calamity without a fugitive (escaping) from it to tell the tale thereafter’. In a note, Carey (1984:109) passes on a suggestion made to him by John Armstrong that the expression ní gnáth orcain cen scéola n-eisi is proverbial and do innisin scél dara n-éisi an intrusive gloss, and cites in support of this the occurrence in the Rennes dindshenchas of Ni bi orgain cen oensciula (Stokes 1894: 447) as well as the phrase which occurs twice in Cormac’s Glossary.

THE RHETORIC OF ODR

ODR is framed by two acts of kinslaying, the second of which is car- ried out to avenge the first. Stokes (1901: 1) has described ODR as a ‘tale of treachery, love, self-devotion, and vengeance’, and these are indeed all closely woven into its tapestry, but it is in fact envy which is the ultimate source of the evil which is unleashed in this saga, and hence of the never-ending cycle of death and destruction which marked the feud between the descendants of Cobthach and Lóegaire. We have already seen that the envy which possesses Cobthach has the force of a disease: ‘Cobthach envied Lóegaire the kingship of Leinster, so that decline and disease afflicted him, and his blood and his flesh wasted away; and that is why he was called Cobthach Cóel (“The Slender One”) of Brega’ (lines 305-8). The following outline will show that the underlying structure of the sequence of events lead- ing to the slaying of Lóegaire (A) is replicated in the sequence of events leading to the slaying of Cobthach (B).

1. Act or acts of hostility towards a kinsman A. We are informed simply that ‘Cobthach did not manage to kill Lóegaire’ (308) Ð no details are given but the clear implication is that he attempted to do so. B. Labraid’s assault on Dind Ríg (396-411) is clearly a hostile act aimed at Cobthach, who has taken the kingship of Leinster which had been held by Labraid’s father and grandfather.

2. Areconciliation is effected A. ‘Lóegaire was summoned to Cobthach so that he might leave 14 TOMÁS Ó CATHASAIGH Lóegaire his blessing before he died’ (309). There is an incident involving a chicken, which convinces Lóegaire that Cobthach is no longer to be taken seriously (309-18). B. After the ‘first destruction’, as we have seen, Labraid became king of Leinster and was at peace with Cobthach, who had ‘the full kingship’ (412-14).

3. An invitation is issued to the victim and accepted by him A. Cobthach says that he is about to die, and he invites Lóegaire to come the next day to raise his grave mound. Lóegaire promises to do so (319-21). B. Labraid invites Cobthach to come and enjoy himself and be enter- tained (415-16).

4. The perpetrator secretly prepares for treachery A. Cobthach instructs his wife and his steward: ‘Say that I have died unknown to anyone else, and let me be put in my chariot with a razor-sharp knife in my hand. My brother will come eagerly to keen me; no doubt he will get something from me as a result’ (322-5). B. Labraid has a house made at Dind Ríg to receive Cobthach: ‘The house was very strong; it was made of iron, walls and floor and doors. The Leinstermen spent a year building it, and father concealed (the fact of) it from son, mother from daughter. From this derives the saying, “There are as many secrets as there are Leinstermen”’ (416- 20).

5. A horrific killing takes place A. Lóegaire’s killing occurs in a chilling scene in which the solemn act of keening a kinsman is violated in the most horrifying way imaginable – the murder by the ‘corpse’ of his brother while he is in the very act of keening him: ‘(In accordance with Cobthach’s instructions), the chariot is taken outside. His brother comes to keen him. He goes and lies down upon him. Cobthach plants the knife into his loins and its point pierced the corner of his heart, so that he killed him with it’ (326-9). B. Cobthach’s death in the iron house was brought about when Labraid and eight others seized the chain that was attached to the door and dragged it out and fastened it to a pillar. Three times fifty forge-bellows, with four warriors to each bellows, were blown, and Cobthach died in the house along with seven hundred others and thirty kings (436-9, 443). THE OLDEST STORY OF THE LAIGIN 15 While the set of events which I have outlined accounts for all of what happens in the first of the two sequences, there is some material in the second sequence which serves to distinguish Labraid’s actions from those of Cobthach which he is avenging. In the first place, Cobthach’s crime is an entirely selfish one, and only his wife and steward are confided in. Labraid on the other hand is assisted (appar- ently) by all the adults of Leinster. Moreover, whereas Cobthach evi- dently has no compunctions about his bloody deed, Labraid takes to the playing field the day after Cobthach arrives:

The next day Labraid went to play with the lads on the meadow. His foster-father saw him doing that. He started to beat Labraid on the back and on the head with a one-stemmed thorn. ‘It is apparent,’ said he, ‘that your notion of a valiant deed is that of a boy. It is evil of you, lad,’ said he, ‘to have invited the king of Ireland with a retinue of thirty kings and not be with them to provide entertainment for them’ (427-32).

Labraid’s fondness, as an adult, for the playing field has been revealed earlier in the saga, and that is a point to which we shall return. With regard to the present occasion, however, it is important to note that Labraid deserts his guest only after he has discovered what a heavy price will have to be paid if he is to proceed with his planned act of vengeance ‘Cobthach could not be prevailed upon to enter the house until Labraid’s mother and his fool had done so. The fool chose (as his reward) the blessing of the Leinstermen and free- dom for his descendants forever. The woman went for the benefit of her son’ (422-5). It is scarcely surprising that he should shirk from the ‘valiant deed’ of an adult, when that entails the slaughter of his mother (and of his fool). The terms which have been set by Cobthach for his entry into the house are enough to drive Labraid away from it. When he has been goaded into action by his foster-father, he dresses himself and he goes into the house. Two comments are made in the course of what follows. First, Labraid says to the guests that fire, drink and food must be provided for them in the house. Cobthach’s answer is curt: ‘It is proper (Is cóir)’. In view of Labraid’s true intention in the matter of providing fire in the house, the reader will remember the heinous crime for which Cobthach is about to be punished, and recognise that Cobthach speaks more truly 16 TOMÁS Ó CATHASAIGH than he knows. The second comment is made by Labraid’s mother. When the flames are being fanned by the bellows, the Leinster war- riors remind Labraid that his mother is inside. She immediately responds, ‘Nay, dear son, save your honour through me, for I shall die in any case.’ Having been called to his destiny from the playing field by his foster-father, and having been given unwitting support by Cobthach, he is now finally vindicated by his mother’s invocation of the all-important concept of honour. Replication is the most striking feature in the structure of ODR. Cobthach twice invites Lóegaire to come to him. Having slain Lóegaire, ‘he was not content with the first kinslaying’ (331), and he had Lóegaire’s son, Ailill, killed as well. Ailill’s son Labraid was dumb until a blow from a hurley made him cry out, an incident which as we have seen is echoed in a later episode. Labraid’s exile is imposed upon him at the Feast of Tara, and culminates in the con- summation of his marriage. There are two destructions at Dind Ríg. The names Labraid and Móen, ‘The Speaker’ and ‘The Mute’, exemplify the coincidence of opposites which is often associated with mythical personages, and the first incident on the playing field explains how Labraid found his voice, and acquired the name by which he was to be most commonly known. He is classified as ‘an unpromising hero’ by Tom Peete Cross (1952:386). While some heroes are precocious in their childhood, others are quite the opposite: as de Vries (1963:214) puts it, ‘the child is often very slow in his development; he is dumb or pretends to be mentally deficient’. Given the fate of his father and grandfather, Labraid’s dumbness might well be construed as a way of ensuring that the king will not regard him as a threat to his position. That it is not a purely physiological matter is revealed by his response to the shock administered on the playing field. Art Ó Maolfabhail (1973: 57) and Michael Chesnutt (2000: 45-7) have associated this incident with that which, as Chesnutt (2000: 36) puts it, ‘is registered under the guises of H1381.2.2.1.1 “Boy twitted with illegitimacy seeks unknown father” and T646 “Illegitimate child taunted by playmates”,’ which is rather a long shot, given that Labraid is not at this stage a child, it is clearly stated that he was Ailill’s son, and there is no mention of taunting.7 Chesnutt (47) says

7 Cross (1952) does not see either of these motifs in ODR. On the other hand, unlike Ó Maolfabhail and Chesnutt, who seem not to have consulted him, he quite properly includes Genemain Chormaic among the Irish examples of T646. In this he followed Dillon (1946: 24); see also Ó Cathasaigh (1977: 58). THE OLDEST STORY OF THE LAIGIN 17 there is ‘confusion’ in the text, but if the content of the text is inter- preted on its own terms, rather than in relation to a motif that is not actually present in it, there is no confusion here that I can see. Orgain Denna Ríg is a highly accomplished work, and there is much to be said for Michael O’Brien’s view (1954: 39) that it ‘is one of the best told Old Irish tales that have been preserved.’8

ABBREVIATIONS

DIL (Contributions to a) Dictionary of the . , 1913-76. LL The Book of Leinster, formerly Lebar na Núachongbála, ed. R. I. Best, O. Bergin, M. A. O’Brien & Anne O’Sullivan. 6 vols, Dublin 1954-84.

REFERENCES

Bhreathnach, Edel, 1996: ‘Temoria: caput Scotorum?’ Ériu 47, 67-88. ÐÐÐ, 2000, ‘Kings, the kingship of Leinster and the regnal poems of Laídshenchas Laigen: a reflection of dynastic politics in Leinster, 650- 1150’, in Seanchas: studies in early and medieval Irish archaeology, his- tory and literature in honour of Francis J. Byrne, ed. Alfred P. Smyth, 299-312. Dublin. Carey, John, 1984: ‘Scél Tuáin meic Chairill’ Ériu 35, 93-111. Chesnutt, Michael, 2000: ‘The fatherless hero in the playground: Irish perspec- tives on the Norse legend of Sigurd’ Béaloideas 68, 33-65. Corthals, Johan, 1990: ‘Some observations on the versification of the rhymeless “Leinster” poems’ Celtica 21, 113-25. Cross, Tom Peete, 1952: Motif-index of early . Bloomington, Indiana (repr. New York 1969). De Vries, Jan, 1963: Heroic song and heroic legend. London. Dillon, Myles, 1946: The cycles of the kings. Oxford (repr. Dublin 1994). Etchingham, Colmán, 1996: ‘Early medieval Irish history’ in Progress in medieval Irish studies, ed. Kim McCone and Katharine Simms, 123-53. Maynooth. Greene, David, 1955: Fingal Rónáin and other stories. Dublin. Gwynn, Edward, 1903: The Metrical Dindshenchas I. Dublin. Hull, Vernam, 1952: ‘Geneamuin Chormaic’ Ériu 16, 79-85. Jaski, Bart, 2000: Early Irish kingship and succession. Dublin. Mac Cana, Proinsias, 1980: The learned tales of medieval Ireland. Dublin. ÐÐÐ 1997 ‘Prosimetrum in insular Celtic literature’, in Prosimetrum: crosscul- tural perspectives on narrative in prose and verse, ed. J. Harris and K. Reichl, 99-130. Cambridge.

8 I thank the Editor of ÉIGSE for helpful suggestions. 18 THE OLDEST STORY OF THE LAIGIN McCone, Kim, 1998: ‘“King” and “queen” in Celtic and Indo-European’ Ériu 49, 1-12. Meyer, Kuno, 1909: Rawlinson B. 502. A facsimile edition with introduction and indexes. Oxford. ÐÐÐ, 1913: ‘’ Anecdota from Irish manuscripts 5. Halle. Ó Cathasaigh, Tomás, 1977: The heroic biography of . Dublin. Ó Concheanainn, Tomás, 1986: ‘The manuscript tradition of two Middle Irish Leinster tales’ Celtica 18, 13-33. O’Brien, M. A., 1954: ‘Irish origin-legends’, in Early Irish society, ed. Myles Dillon, 36-51. Dublin. Ó Corráin, Donnchadh, 1978: ‘Nationality and kingship in pre-Norman Ireland’, in Nationality and the pursuit of national independence, ed. T. W. Moody, 1-35. Belfast. ÐÐÐ, 1986 ‘Historical need and literary narrative’, in Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Celtic studies, ed. D. Ellis Evans et al., 141-58. Oxford. O Daly, Máirín, 1961-63: ‘A chóicid choín Chairpri crúaid’ Éigse 10, 177-97. Ó Maolfabhail, Art, 1973: Camán. Dundalk. O’Rahilly, T. F., 1946: Early Irish history and mythology. Dublin. Ó Riain, Pádraig, 1978: Cath Almaine. Dublin. Sims-Williams, Patrick, 1991: ‘The submission of Irish kings in fact and fiction: Henry II, Bendigeidfran, and the dating of the four branches of the Mabinogi’ Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies 22, 31-61. Stokes, Whitley, 1894: ‘The prose tales in the Rennes Dindshenchas’ Revue Celtique 15, 272-336, 418-84. ÐÐÐ, 1901: ‘The destruction of Dind Ríg’ ZCP 3, 1-14. Thurneysen, Rudolf, 1917: ‘Irisches’ ZCP 11, 30-38. Vendryes, Joseph, 1958-9: ‘La destruction de Dind Ríg’ Études Celtiques 8, 7- 40.

TOMÁS Ó CATHASAIGH Harvard University FÉLIRE ÓENGUSSO: PROBLEMS OF DATING A MONUMENT OF OLD IRISH

A GENERALLY agreed date for Félire Óengusso, ‘The [Metrical] Martyrology of Oengus’,1 was achieved in the first decade of the twentieth century when Whitley Stokes concurred with John Strachan, shortly before they both died, that the sum of the linguis- tic evidence made likely an origin in the Old Irish period.2 Rudolf Thurneysen had also come to this conclusion,3 and in 1907 by argu- ment from the references in Oengus’s prologue to recently deceased persons he concluded that the Félire was composed within the period 797-808;4 this he also held to be consistent with the evidence of eighth- and ninth-century manuscripts containing Old Irish.5 These conclusions constituted a staple of scholarship concerning Old Irish for much of the century. Although we see a good deal of the mental world of the author of the Félire in his text, he did not name himself therein. The attribu- tion to Bishop Oengus mac Oengobann maic Oíbleáin, who died on 11 March in an unknown year, rests on later and external sources.6 On the other hand, the author’s devotion to his teacher Bishop Mael Ruain is quite clear from the Félire itself.7 Although Oengus himself may have had some previous and subsequent association with the church of Cluain Eidnech (Clonenagh, Co. Laois),8 for the reasons

1 Félire Óengusso Céli Dé. The Martyrology of Oengus the Culdee, ed. and transl. Whitley Stokes (London 1905). 2 ibid., vii, xxviii-xxxviii; John Strachan, ‘Contributions to the history of the depo- nent verb in Irish’, Transactions of the Philological Society (1891-4) 444-568, at pp 553-5 (on p. 555 Strachan wrote, ‘I shall be content to refer the poem, whether composed by Oengus or not, to the ninth century’). See also Strachan’s paper, ‘Final vowels in the Félire Oenguso’ RC 20 (1899) 191-8, 295-305. 3 In a review (of Strachan’s study of the verbal system of Saltair na Rann) in ZCP 1 (1897) 342-56, at p. 345. 4 Rudolf Thurneysen, ‘Die Abfassung des Félire von Oengus’ ZCP 6 (1908) 6-8. 5 Rudolf Thurneysen, Handbuch des Alt-Irischen: Grammatik, Texte und Wörter- buch (2 vols, Heidelberg 1909) I 5-9, especially p. 7. There is a question as to how much circularity was involved in the reasoning. I have discussed this point in Three men in a boat: scribe, language, and culture in the Church of viking-age Europe (Cambridge 1997) 18-36, especially 30-1. 6 Stokes, Félire Óengusso xxiv-xxviii, for discussion; but that now requires impor- tant revisions. 7 Epilogue, lines 61-8 (ibid. 266-7). See also below, n. 9. 8 The evidence comes from the poem Aíbind suide sund amne (see below, n. 53); see also discussion by James Carney, ‘The date and authorship of Saltair na Rann’, forthcoming. 20 DAVID N. DUMVILLE just given the Félire has usually been taken to be a product of the church of Tamlachtae (Tallaght, Co. Dublin) in the years following the death of Mael Ruain in 792.9 There survives (albeit fragmentarily) another martyrology which has been associated with the church of Tallaght.10 Unlike Félire Oengusso this is not a verse text. It presents two substantial parallel series of , one international and one Insular (primarily Gaelic),11 organised according to a calendar beginning on 25 December.12 Already in the twelfth century another Irish martyrologist recognised this as a source of Félire Oengusso: Ocus iss edh fodera dó-som sin co deimhin – amhail ro-dherbsamar – ara fagbáil amhlaidh sin i mmartiroloig Thamhlachta Mhaelruain asin-derna a fhélere. And this was surely Ð as we have ascertained Ð the reason why he [Oengus] did so, because it was thus in the martyrology of Tallaght, out of which he composed his Félire.13 At about the same time as Mael Muire Ua Gormáin wrote this,14 a copy of the so-called Martyrology of Tallaght was being executed as part of the great codex now known mistakenly as the Book of Leinster, or more properly Lebar na Nuachongbála, ‘The Book of Oughaval’ (in present-day Co. Laois).15 In the later twelfth century,

9 That Mael Ruain was dead at the time of composition of the Félire is clear from Prologue, lines 225-8 (Stokes, Félire Óengusso 26), and the stanza for 7 July (ibid. 161). 10 The Martyrology of Tallaght, ed. R. I. Best and H. J. Lawlor (London 1931). 11 These sections were rather inaccurately called ‘Roman’ and ‘Irish’ by the editors. See further below, n. 135. 12 Contrast Félire Oengusso, the calendarial part of which runs from 1 January to 31 December. 13 Félire Húi Gormáin. The Martyrology of Gorman, ed. and transl. Whitley Stokes (London 1895) 4-5 (with some minor alterations): Mael Muire was justifying his own composition by reference to the faults which he found in Oengus’s. 14 The date usually given is 1166 x 1174 (ibid. xix), although on the evidence pre- sented from the preface a date within the period 1166-73 would be more accurate (the extension to 1174 relies on the evidence of a gloss to the text for 31 March). However, for evidence for a rather later dating, after 1185, see John Hennig, ‘The sources of the martyrological tradition of non-Irish saints in mediaeval Ireland’ Sacris Erudiri 21 (1972-3) 407-34 (at pp 407-8). Elsewhere, Hennig estimated its date as ‘about A.D.1180’: idem, ‘Ireland’s contribution to the martyrological tradi- tion of the popes’ Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 10 (1972) 9-23 (at p. 14). 15 On the manuscript see William O’Sullivan, ‘Notes on the scripts and make-up of the Book of Leinster’ Celtica 7 (1966) 1-31; on Noughaval/Oughaval, see The Book FÉLIRE ÓENGUSSO: PROBLEMS OF DATING 21 therefore, there were at least three copies of the text: (i) that used by Mael Muire, (ii) the exemplar of the Book of Leinster, and (iii) Lebar na Núachongbála itself. John Hennig made the important point that, given the function of the Martyrology of Tallaght, we should expect the text originally to have circulated as a separate book rather than as part of a scholarly Sammelhandschrift, the context in which we find it in the extant medieval manuscript.16 Despite evidence that the transmitted text of the Martyrology of Tallaght (henceforth T) is substantially later in date than Félire Oengusso (henceforth O), Mael Muire’s evidently correct statement of the basic relationship of the two texts has been allowed to domi- nate scholarship, with the result that T has also been dated around 800, but with the understanding that it must be a little older than O.17 In recent discussion that view of the relationship has been main- tained, arguably with very troublesome results. In the last decade there has been a fresh investigation of the ques- tion in an attempt to provide a fully argued case for the dating of these two texts from Tallaght. Pádraig Ó Riain, after a lengthy and thoughtful exposition, has concluded that both texts must be dated within the period 828-33, but with T, of course, retaining priority.18 His views have been rebutted, with only a brief discussion, by Breatnach;19 and I myself have expressed concern about Ó Riain’s

of Leinster, formerly Lebar na Núachongbála, ed. R. I. Best et al. (6 vols, Dublin 1954-83) I xi-xv; for a semi-diplomatic text of the Martyrology of Tallaght, see ibid. VI 1596-1648. For further discussion see Uáitéar Mac Gearailt, Studia Hibernica 24 (1984-8) 190-7. 16 John Hennig, ‘Studies in the texts of the Martyrology of Tallaght, of Félire Oengusso and of Félire Húi Gormáin’ PRIA 69 C (1970) 45-112 (at p. 87). 17 T was attributed by seventeenth-century scholars to Mael Ruain and Oengus (see below, n. 107): that attribution ensured that T was earlier than O, since the latter was written after Mael Ruain’s death. In the last generation’s scholarship, only John Hennig cast a critical eye on the supposed relationship of T and O: see, for example, ‘Studies in the tradition of the Martyrologium Hieronymianum in Ireland’ Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 63 [Studia Patristica 1] (1957) 104-11 (at p. 106); ‘The function of the Martyrology of Tallaght’ Mediaeval Studies 26 (1964) 315-28 (at p. 325). 18 Pádraig Ó Riain, ‘The Tallaght martyrologies, redated’ Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies 20 (1990) 21-38. For a (perhaps unintentionally) revised date, 826x833, see idem, Anglo-Saxon Ireland: the evidence of the Martyrology of Tallaght (Cambridge 1993) 3, 5, 13. 19 Liam Breatnach, ‘Poets and poetry’ in Progress in medieval Irish studies, ed. Kim McCone and Katharine Simms (Maynooth 1996) 65-77 (at pp 74-5). 22 DAVID N. DUMVILLE conclusions, in advance of this fuller treatment.20 In the present paper, while I shall make some remarks about T, my principal con- cern is with the dating of O. I hope to return to the history of T on a subsequent occasion. It is clear from Ó Riain’s article that some problems of method arise in the attempt to find a dating for the two extant martyrologies from Tallaght. It is therefore necessary for us to proceed with con- siderable care. We must begin by asking how O might be dated. The most straightforward method, that applied by Thurneysen in 1907,21 was to argue from the dates of the most recent persons named by Oengus. Thurneysen relied on the prologue rather than the body of the work. Mentioned there as dead were Mael Ruain of Tallaght and two secular rulers, in two successive and contrasting quatrains.

Donnchad dric ruad rogdae 221 Donnchad the wrathful, ruddy, chosen nó Bran buadach Berbae, 222 or victorious Bran of the Barrow, ní-beir dím sním lobrae 223 it does not take weariness of weakness from me athigid a mmemrae. 224 to visit their tombs. Mael Ruain iarna goiri, 225 Mael Ruain after his pious service, grian már desmaig Midi, 226 the great sun on the south of the plain of Mide, occa lecht co nglaini 227 at his grave with purity ícthair cnet cech cridi. 228 is healed the sigh of every heart.22

Mael Ruain died in 792.23 Bran Berbae, if correctly identified as Bran Ardchenn mac Muiredaig, overking of Leinster,24 may have died in 795, if we push the meaning of an entry in the Annals of Inisfallen or instead accept the less ambiguous statement of the same event provided by the Annals of the Four Masters and the Annals of

20 Peritia 11 (1997) 458; Dumville, Three men in a boat 32. 21 See above, n. 4. 22 Stokes, Félire Óengusso 26 (with some minor alterations). These stanzas form part of a sustained sequence of contrasts which extend from line 61 to line 252 (ibid. 19-27). 23 For the chronicle sources for this event see below, p. 40. 24 The gloss in MS Lb of Félire Óengusso (Ó Riain, ‘The Tallaght martyrologies’ 25 n. 24), which offers this identification, is, however, by definition unsatisfactory as evidence. FÉLIRE ÓENGUSSO: PROBLEMS OF DATING 23 Ulster.25 Donnchad, if correctly identified as Donnchad mac Domnaill, king of Tara, died in 797.26 The next-but-one stanza of the prologue also seems to make a political point.

In gormríg ro múchtha, 233 The famous kings have been stifled, in Domnaill ro plágtha; 234 the Domnalls have been plagued; in Chiaráin ro rígtha, 235 the Ciaráns have been crowned, in Chrónáin ro mártha. 236 the Crónáns have been magnified.27

This pluralising of personal names is rather unusual. More than one St Ciarán and more than one St Crónán are known. On the other hand, the Domnalls so stigmatised were presumably of Uí Néill, in whose dynasty the name recurred among its prominent representa- tives – Domnall mac Muirchertaig in the sixth century (†566), Domnall mac Aedo in the seventh (†642), and in more recent times Domnall mac Muirchertaig (†761), Domnall mac Murchada (†763), perhaps Domnall mac Donnchada (†799),28 and Domnall mac Aedo of Northern Uí Néill (†804). It is clear that there was no love lost between the rulers of Tallaght and Uí Néill. However pointed we may take Oengus’s famous remarks about Tara to be,29 we see from the events of 811 Ð when the community of Tallaght caused a retal- iatory boycott of the Fair of Tailtiu – that Mael Ruain’s house had suffered at the hands of Uí Néill.30 Life in the borderlands of Leinster was no doubt difficult. One further pointed remark of Oengus’s prologue deserves to be noticed. 25 AI 118-19 (795.1); AFM I 396-9 (790.3); AU 250-1 (795.1). In any case, the date 797 given by Ó Riain, ‘The Tallaght martyrologies’ 24, is a slip. 26 See, for example, AU 252-3 (797.l). It should also be noted that his sister Ð not daughter, as stated by Francis John Byrne, Irish kings and high-kings (London 1973) 158 Ð Eithne was wife of Bran of Leinster (AU 250-1 (795.1)); see above, n. 24. 27 Stokes, Félire Óengusso 27 (with some minor alterations). 28 Not 797, as Ó Riain (‘The Tallaght martyrologies’ 37), who has identified him as son of Donnchad mac Domnaill. 29 Stokes, Félire Óengusso 24 (lines 165-76). See now also Marc Schneiders, ‘“Pagan past and christian present” in “Félire Óengusso”’ in Cultural identity and cultural integration Ð Ireland and Europe in the early Middle Ages, ed. Doris Edel (Blackrock 1995) 157-69 (at pp 162-5). 30 For details of the chronicle-evidence, see below, p. 41. 24 DAVID N. DUMVILLE Lóichet laindrech lígach 197 A lamp lucid, beautiful, Fernae fortrén eóbail; 198 Ferns the mighty, good-great; ní mair in drong uabair 199 there does not abide the proud throng ráith Bécce maicc Eógain. 200 of the fort of Bécc son of Eógan. Cid na déccaid uili 201 Why do you not all see bretha in ríg cétnai? 202 the judgments of the same King? Ní mair Bécc macc Eógain, 203 Bécc son of Eógan abides not, maraid Aed macc Sétnai. 204 Aed son of Sétnae abides.31 Bécc mac Eógain is undoubtedly presented as an example of a secu- lar ruler, as against an ecclesiastical Aed mac Sétnai, the patron (Maedóc) of Ferns (Co. Wexford).32 Here is a guarantee that this patronymic of Aed was known by the ninth century.33 Bécc is identi- fiable as a member of Uí Fhelmeda,34 a Leinster dynasty (itself a seg- ment of Uí Cheinnselaig)35 whose northern branch has been placed around Tullow (bar. Rathvilly, Co. Carlow) and whose southern branch lived in bar. Ballaghkeen, Co. Wexford.36 In the of St Maedóc of Ferns,37 we meet Bécc mac Eógain, as uir plebeus or fer uasal conaigh, in the Latin Vita S. Maedoc of the Dublin and Oxford collections (and in that of Vitae SS. Wallensium) and in the second vernacular Life, Betha Maedócc Ferna,38 but not in the Latin Life in the Salmanticensis collection.39 Here is evidence that the 31 Stokes, Félire Óengusso 25 (with some minor alterations). 32 On the evidence of O and T, his feast was celebrated on 31 January. 33 For the genealogical evidence see Corpus genealogiarum sanctorum Hiberniae, ed. Pádraig Ó Riain (Dublin 1985) 252 (s.n. Máedóc m. Sétna). 34 Corpus genealogiarum Hiberniae I, ed. M. A. O’Brien (Dublin 1962, repr. 1976) 353-4. 35 ibid. 470. 36 Alfred P. Smyth, Celtic Leinster (Blackrock 1982) 63, 67 (and maps). Cf. Byrne, Irish kings 143, 149, 288, 290. On the northern branch see also FAI 240; on the south- ern branch see AFM VII 118. 37 For a summary account see James F. Kenney, The sources for the early history of Ireland: ecclesiastical (New York 1929, rev. imp. 1966) 448-9 (no. 230). For an account of the interrelationships of the Latin Lives, see Sharpe, Medieval Irish saints’ Lives: an introduction to Vitae Sanctorum Hiberniae (Oxford 1991) 223-7, 288-9, 295-6 (stemma), 395-6 (summary). 38 Vitae Sanctorum Hiberniae, ed. Charles Plummer (2 vols, Oxford 1910; repr. 1968) II 151, ¤27 (from the Dublin collection), and II 302 ¤26 (from the Welsh col- lection); Bethada náem nÉrenn. Lives of Irish saints, ed. and transl. Charles Plummer (2 vols, Oxford 1922; repr. 1968) I 217-18 and II 211 (¤xxxvii [101-2]). 39 Vitae sanctorum Hiberniae ex codice olim Salmanticensi nunc Bruxellensi, ed. W. W. Heist (Brussels 1965) 234-47. FÉLIRE ÓENGUSSO: PROBLEMS OF DATING 25 story of Bécc’s dealings with Maedóc existed by the ninth century: it seems hard that Oengus should imply that no one remembered this layman who willingly ‘se et semen suum cum uilla Deo et sancto Moedhog in eternum obtulit’.40 What all this seems to do is to place the author in a location where the politics of Leinster and Mide (and Uí Néill territories more broadly) were important and in a time when there would have been some point in referring to Kings Bran and Donnchad who, though deceased, must have died within living memory: the contrast drawn between the merits of their graves and those of Mael Ruain’s clearly also directs us to Tallaght. On all this evidence we may be confident that O was composed at Tallaght no earlier than 797. To turn to the core of O, the 365 stanzas commemorating saints of every day of the year,41 is to enter an even more troublesome area. O survives in manuscripts of the fifteenth century and later,42 encrusted with prefaces and commentary which (in the absence of a full study) have been tentatively dated to the eleventh or twelfth century.43 No textual history of O has been constructed and published: Whitley Stokes’s edition in 1905 was deliberately eclectic, but he took the incomplete text of Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Rawlinson B 505, his R1, to be, ‘so far as it goes, by far the best that has come down to us’.44 Scrutiny of Stokes’s critical apparatus shows that various wit- nesses offer here and there different saints for commemoration;45 the

40 Plummer, Vitae II 151. 41 29 February is not noticed. 42 For the earliest, , see Tomás Ó Concheanainn, ‘The scribe of the Leabhar Breac’ Ériu 24 (1973) 64-79; parts, at least, of the manuscript were writ- ten in 1408-11. 43 For the most recent comment see Ó Riain, ‘The Tallaght martyrologies’ 21 n. 3: ‘the eleventh-century(?) Preface to the text’. Ó Riain has now argued that the com- mentary on O belongs to the 1170s: ‘Die Bibliothek des Verfassers des kommen- tierten Félire Óengusso’ in Übersetzung, Adaptation und Akkulturation im insularen Mittelalter, ed. Erich Poppe and H. L. C. Tristram (Münster 1999) 87-104. 44 Stokes, Félire Óengusso xxi. This manuscript Stokes ascribed to ‘the beginning of the fifteenth century’. The prologue and epilogue are wanting. On the manuscript see now also Brian Ó Cuív, Catalogue of Irish language manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford and Oxford college libraries I (Dublin 2001) 208-15 (no. 36). 45 For example, Eutimus / Iustinus at 5 May (discussed below, n. 119). I give a selec- tion of the very different types of variation: Madian / Mathias, 23 February; Sinchell / dá Shinchell, 26 March; Neth-Chóeme / Mochaeme, 1 May; Columb / Colmán, 7 June; Abundius / Quintus, 26 August; Agappa / Agatha, 30 August; Comgán / Com- gall, 13 October; Pilipp / Lucas, 18 October; Ernach / Ercnat, 30 October; Báethan / Lachtán, 13 December. At 18 December, Flannán appears additionally in the first 26 DAVID N. DUMVILLE relative merits and demerits of the different names remain to be established. With these cautions entered, we may turn to the question whether the calendarial part of O offers help with dating the composition of the text. Approximately three hundred Irish saints are commemo- rated here, many of whom still await satisfactory identification. Of those who are recognisable, Mael Ruain at 7 July confirms the evi- dence of the prologue.46 It has not, however, proved easy to identify saints with later death dates. One certain example is the Airerán ecnae commemorated at 11 August,47 whose notice in T for the same day is Aireráin sapientis et abbatis Tamlachta post Mael Ruain, ‘[commemoration] of Airerán sapiens and abbot of Tallaght after Mael Ruain’.48 Unfortunately we do not know the year of Airerán’s death; the next Tallaght obit recorded in the chronicles is that of Abbot Airfhinnán in 803, memorialised as a bishop in T for 10 February.49 Unfortunately, therefore, Airerán’s death can only be placed within the period 792-803. In O, neither Mael Ruain nor Airerán is explicitly associated with Tallaght, perhaps through necessity of metre. It is tempting to argue that since Airfhinnán is not memorialised in O, that text must have been composed before his death in 803. But this temptation must be resisted, for the highly selective record of saints in O, determined by the limitation of one stanza of four six-syllable lines per day, means that no argument from silence is credible. We remain in the situation described by Whitley Stokes in 1905, ‘that no saint or other person who certainly died in the ninth century is mentioned’ in O.50 line, while in the third line one text describes Diucaill / Dícuill as Moelruain raite. In one manuscript (Stokes’s L) Oengus himself has been inserted at 11 March! 46 ibid. 161. 47 ibid. 175 (see n. 17 for variant readings: Eireran, E¸re¸nan, Airennan). 48 Best and Lawlor, Martyrology of Tallaght 62. T is followed in this by Félire Uí Gormáin and by a seventeenth-century martyrology: The Martyrology of Donegal: a calendar of the saints of Ireland, ed. and transl. J. H. Todd, William Reeves and John O’Donovan (Dublin 1864) 216-17. 49 Best and Lawlor, Martyrology of Tallaght 16 (Airendani ep. Tamlacta); and see below, pp 40-1. It is important not to confuse Airerán and Airfhinnán: the two have been conflated by Ó Riain (‘The Tallaght martyrologies’ 26-7), perhaps encouraged by one of the variant readings in O (see above, n. 47), Airennán. Ailerán and Airerán are perhaps the same name; but there is no evident justification for taking the com- memoration of Airfhinnán at 10 February to be a late duplication of Airerán’s com- memoration at 11 August (as by Ó Riain, ibid.). 50 Stokes, Félire Óengusso xxxviii. Stokes also gave arguments for dating based on saints derived from the ‘Roman’ section of T Ð Joseph sponsus Mariae (19 March) and Paul the Deacon (13 April): ibid., and p. 440 (s.n. Pól deochoin). FÉLIRE ÓENGUSSO: PROBLEMS OF DATING 27 It is not easy to offer a terminus ante quem for O. The language of the work was decisively established a century ago as being Old Irish: in Stokes’s words, ‘The deponential inflexion seems to prove that our Martyrology is at the latest not later than the ninth century.’51 Attempts to reconstruct the author’s life history have been compli- cated by the existence of a small number of other poetic texts asso- ciated with the name of Oengus.52 While these seem to attest to the influence of O as a model on subsequent poets, and the willingness of at least two of these to celebrate their shared name, only one offers an addition to our scanty knowledge of the author of O. The poem by another Oengus, Aíbind suide sund amne,53 tells us that his pre- decessor died on a Friday.54 In other respects it shares matter with the Middle-Irish prefaces to O. As it stands, it embodies a late feature, the description of Oengus as mac Oíblén.55 James Carney proposed to date this poem to the mid-ninth century and therefore felt obliged to emend mac to the genealogically correct ua.56 The poem awaits a critical edition and a thorough linguistic and metrical analysis. In T, at 11 March, we read Oengusa episcopi huí Oíbleáin.57 Taking this information together with the later Oengus’s statement that his pre- decessor died on a Friday, scholars have speculated that the year of his death was 819, 824, or 830.58 In other words, it is only by gain- ing a sense of Oengus’s life-span that a more precise terminus ante quem might be gained. The difficulty of pressing this criterion is illustrated by an entry in the Annals of Ulster for 870, recording the

51 ibid. xxxv; cf. n. 2, above. 52The earliest scholarly discussion was published more than 350 years ago: Acta sanctorum veteris et maioris Scotiæ, seu Hiberniæ sanctorum insulae, I, ed. Iohannes Colgan (Lovanii 1645) 579-83. For the most recent see Carney, ‘The date and author- ship of Saltair na Rann’ (above, n. 8). 53 Ed. and transl. Stokes, Félire Óengusso xxiv-xxvi. For a new translation see Carney, ‘The date and authorship of Saltair na Rann’ (see above, n. 8). 54 Stanza 3d. 55 Stanza 2d. 56 Carney, ‘The date and authorship of Saltair na Rann’ (above, n. 8). 57 Best and Lawlor, Martyrology of Tallaght 22. 58 Colgan, Acta sanctorum 582. In the copies of this book which I have consulted, a printing fault has resulted in the reading ‘possumus conijcere quod anno 819. 824, vel 8 0 decesserit’, where a ‘-3-’ can perhaps just be made out. (In the facsimile edi- tion by Jennings, Dublin 1948, only a blank may be seen.) The lacuna was supplied at the latest by John Lanigan, An ecclesiastical history of Ireland, from the first introduction of among the Irish to the beginning of the thirteenth century (2nd ed., 4 vols, Dublin 1829) III 249, n. 100, who offered ‘830’ as the third option; this was repeated by Stokes, Félire Óengusso xxvi. 28 DAVID N. DUMVILLE death of Comgán Fota ancorita Tamhlactae, daltae Maele Ruain.59 If we take literally the statement that Comgán was daltae (‘pupil’, ‘dis- ciple’) of Mael Ruain, then he must have been well over eighty in 870, for Mael Ruain had died seventy-eight years earlier. Oengus had probably died before 870, but how much earlier? In sum, we have scarcely progressed beyond the proposition that O was com- posed no earlier than 797 (the year of the death of King Donnchad) or the unknown year of the death of Abbot Airerán which might have been slightly later (but could have occurred within the period 792-7). A series of other approaches to the dating of O takes us into even rougher seas. Rudolf Thurneysen proposed that the terminus ante quem was 808, on the argument that Oengus’s reference to the grave of Bran, overking of Leinster, would have point only in the reign of his successor Fínshnechta mac Cellaig, who died in 808 (and like- wise that the reference to King Donnchad would be appropriate only in the reign of his successor Aed mac Néill who died in 819).60 A potential weakness in this argument has been pointed out by Ó Riain, ‘that neither king named in the Prologue was succeeded by a mem- ber of his own family’.61 He has argued that ‘It stands to reason, therefore, that until such time as the Prologue kings were succeeded by members of their own families, their graves are unlikely to have had any great symbolic significance.’62 If this deduction be preferred to Thurneysen’s, then the crucial dating points would be the deaths of the next members of the family to succeed.63 The figures in ques- tion are Muiredach, joint king of Leinster, who died in 818, and Conchobar mac Donnchada, king of Tara 819-33. The absence of overlap has led Ó Riain to suggest that the next of Bran’s line to suc- ceed in Leinster, Cellach mac Brain, overking 829-34, should be

59 AU 326-7 (870.5); cf. below, p. 41-2. This monk was presumably not the Comgán céle Dé celebrated in T at 2 August and 13 October (Best and Lawlor, Martyrology of Tallaght 59, 79) Ð the only places in T where that phrase is to be found, making it likely that the two notices are of one person Ð and in O (without epi- thet) at 13 October (Stokes, Félire Óengusso 216). 60 See above, n. 4. For these kings’ obits, see, for example, AU 264-5 (808.6) and 274-5 (819.2). 61 ‘The Tallaght martyrologies’ 37. 62 ibid. It could, however, be argued that Oengus’s point was that these kings’ graves had negative symbolic significance, just as the old royal fortresses are deso- late. 63 ibid. 37-8. FÉLIRE ÓENGUSSO: PROBLEMS OF DATING 29 taken into account.64 On this argument, Oengus’s references to Bran and Donnchad would therefore only have point within the period 829-33, which becomes the dating range for the composition of O.65 Opinions will no doubt differ as to whether this more extended and dynastically based argument is sound. The principal difficulty which it faces is that it concentrates on overkingships. It is entirely likely that members of the families of Bran and Donnchad succeeded them immediately in kingship of their own tuatha and perhaps even in mesne overkingships (mórthuatha). Persons living in the vicinity, as at Tallaght, would have been well aware of the circumstances, whereas the historical record on which we rely is at best patchy in relation to these lower levels of rulership. Given these various pos- sibilities, divining the mind of Oengus in this regard may seem almost hopeless. The absence from O of persons thought likely to have been included if they died before the deduced period of com- position of O has also been invoked as a dating criterion. As I have already indicated, the absence of any saint from O can hardly be invoked in such a cause, given the neccessarily highly selective nature of O’s record.66 On the other hand, some identifications have been offered of persons memorialised in O with ecclesiastics who died within the period 797-829. I have already dealt with the case of Airerán, Mael Ruain’s successor as abbot of Tallaght, but I must stress that I see no justification for identifying him with Airfhinnán, (hypothetically) the next ruler of that house, who died in 803.67 The second candidate proposed for identification is the Modímóc celebrated in O at 10 December.68 The scholia to O, as also to Félire Uí Gormáin, identify him as belonging to Cluain Caín Arad in Munster (Clonkeen, Co. Limerick),69 and this has provided the fuel for his equation with the Munster anchorite Dímmán of Araid whose death is recorded for 811 in the Annals of Ulster;70 in the Annals of 64 ibid. 38. For obits of these three rulers see, for example, AU 274-5 (818.1), 288- 9 (833.1), and 290-1 (834.3). For succession to the overkingship of Leinster in this period see Donnchadh Ó Corráin, ‘Irish regnal succession: a reappraisal’ Studia Hibernica 11 (1971) 7-39 (at pp 12-14); cf. Byrne, Irish kings 130-64, especially pp 158-62 (cf. p. 289). 65 Not in the period 828-33, as Ó Riain, ‘The Tallaght martyrologies’ 38; on his argument, the former terminus is appropriate only to T (on the evidence presented on pp 35-6). 66 See above, p. 26. 67 ibid. 68 Ó Riain, ‘The Tallaght martyrologies’ 28-30; Stokes, Félire Óengusso 250. 69 Stokes, Félire Óengusso 258-9. 70 AU 266-7 (811.4); cf. AFM I 416-17 (806.1). 30 DAVID N. DUMVILLE Inisfallen he is Dímmán of Cell Drumman, Kildromin (Co. Limerick), also in the district of Araid.71 There is no doubt that Dímmán and Modímóc could be variant pet-names for the same per- son, hypothetically Dímmae. But that the Modímóc of 10 December is this Dímmán Arad is called into question by an entry in T for 26 April: Modímmóc Cluana Cáin.72 An entry in T must take priority over scholia to O and over the evidence of Félire Uí Gormáin, whether text or scholia. The presumption must be that the Modímóc of 10 December is not to be associated with the Dímmán of Araid who died in 811. The scholiasts, seeking long after his death to iden- tify him, may have seized upon the other entry in T and on the chron- icles, just as modern scholars have done. The case, as with the equation of Airerán and Airfhinnán of Tallaght, is anything but ‘def- inite’.73 The final ninth-century candidate for identification in O has been advanced with less conviction.74 This is Flann mac Fairchellaig, abbot of Lismore, who died in 825.75 He has been identified with the Flann celebrated in O at 14 January, who is described there as find fechtnach, ‘fair (and) happy’ in Whitley Stokes’s translation.76 In T this Flann is memorialised as Fland Find i Cullind i fail Chorcaigi;77 that he was of ‘Cullen near Cork’ provides no grounds for identify- ing him with Flann mac Fairchellaig who has a separate and quite

71 AI 122-3 (811.2). On the placenames see Ó Riain, ‘The Tallaght martyrologies’ 29. Dímmán is given a violent death in an addition to the early twelfth-century text Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh. The War of the Gaedhil with the Gaill, ed. and transl. J. H. Todd (London 1867) 4-5 (§41). Ó Riain has suggested that the author of the Cogadh was ‘intent, no doubt, on putting the blame on the Norse’ (‘The Tallaght martyrologies’ 29); that author was never coy about blaming vikings, but the passage is in any case an addition. 72 Best and Lawlor, Martyrology of Tallaght 36. T’s record for 10 December is no longer extant. 73 Ó Riain, ‘The Tallaght martyrologies’ 36 (cf. p. 25). Dímmán of Araid is also found in the Middle Irish text Lucht oentad Mael Ruain, a work perhaps of the twelfth century: cf. Donnchadh Ó Corráin, ‘Foreign connections and domestic poli- tics: Killaloe and the Uí Briain in twelfth-century hagiography’ in Ireland in early mediaeval Europe: studies in memory of Kathleen Hughes, ed. Dorothy Whitelock et al. (Cambridge 1982) 213-31 (at p. 227 and n. 56). I have given it extended consid- eration in Ireland’s desert-fathers, ed. and transl. E. J. Gwynn et al. (Cambridge, forthcoming) xliii-lvi (cf. lxxxvi): Dímmán is discussed on p. l. 74 Ó Riain, ‘The Tallaght martyrologies’ 24, 34, 36. 75 For his obit with this title see AU 282-3 (s.a. 825.13); for Flann as abbot of Emly and Cork also, see AI 126-7 (825.1). 76 Stokes, Félire Óengusso 35. 77 Best and Lawlor, Martyrology of Tallaght 8. FÉLIRE ÓENGUSSO: PROBLEMS OF DATING 31 clear entry in T at 21 December.78 Only special pleading can connect them. Of the three ninth-century identifications proposed, one relies on a mistaken conflation, the second (which is the least implausible) requires reliance on a late scholiast, who may have made a false con- flation, and the third is unevidenced and unnecessary. The context in which it has been possible to propose these identifications is one of assumptions about the relation of O to its source or sources, and it is to this question that we must now turn. Oengus provided some statements about his sources. His remarks are helpful principally in that they repeatedly affirm the plurality of books to which he had resort.79 As we have seen, Mael Muire Ua Gormáin correctly identified the Martyrology of Tallaght as a source of O, to which relationship he attributed certain faults in O.80 In following Mael Muire, however, modern scholars have often tended to assume that there is a simple relationship. Not all the contents of O’s calendarial section can be explained by reference to T.81 And John Hennig was able to show, during a lifetime of study of these texts, that the relationship of O and T to one another and to their sources is quite complex; it is fair to say that the results of his work still remain to be fully integrated into Irish scholarship.82 Not the least aspect of this intricate problem is to understand the develop- ment of T which, as we have it in later copies, appears to be deriva- tive of a version of its text achieved in the early tenth century. John Colgan, in 1645, attempted to date T. He wrote: ‘Meminit enim [Martyrologium Tamlachtense] Carbræi Abb. Cluan. qui 6. Mart. an. 899 decessijt, et aliorum qui vsque ad istum annum obierunt.’83

78 ibid. 87 (Flaind meic Fhairchellaig, at the beginning of a second paragraph of ‘Irish’ entries). 79 Epilogue, lines 109-12, 137-44: Stokes, Félire Óengusso 269, 270. 80 See above, n. 13. 81 For three examples, see John Hennig, ‘Britain’s place in the early Irish marty- rologies’ Medium Aevum 26 (1957) 17-24, at pp. 19 (on 23 March) and 21-2 (on 5 August), and idem, ‘Studies in the Latin texts’ 71 (on 8 September). 82 For a complete account of his work, see E. von Severus, ‘Bibliographie Dr. phil. Dr. phil. h.c. John Hennig’ Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 13 (1971) 141-71 and 19 (1978) 89-105; A. A. Häussling, ‘Bibliographie John Hennig 1977-1986 mit Nachträgen 1971-1976’ ibid. 28 (1986) 235-46, and ‘John Hennigs Beitrag zur Liturgiewissenschaft’ ibid. 29 (1987) 213-20. See also John Hennig, ‘Liturgiekunde’, ibid. 221-33. 83 Colgan, Acta sanctorum 4. 32 DAVID N. DUMVILLE The entry in question in T reads Carpre Cruinn.84 Cairpre was bishop of Clonmacnoise: we see him holding a synod in 899 and dying in 904 (Colgan’s date of 899 for his death derives from the incorrect chronology of the Four Masters).85 Unfortunately, Colgan did not give precision to his identification of the alii memorialised in T who had died vsque ad istum annum. He did, however, note as significant the absence of Cormac mac Cuilennáin, king and bishop, killed in 908.86 The ‘Irish’ sections of T (as far as they survive: 1-3 September and 1 November-16 December are wanting) comprise some 1,600 memorial notices, a good number of these containing two or more names.87 The editors of T made heroic efforts to identify as many of these as possible, but many come unattended by any precise infor- mation, a lack which induced Best and Lawlor to rely on the scho- liasts of O and Félire Uí Gormáin, a profoundly dangerous course. In the present circumstances, until we are better informed about the history and prehistory of T, even to rely on glosses, interlineations and marginalia in the transmitted text for identification of persons

84 Best and Lawlor, Martyrology of Tallaght 21. For this entry we rely on the sev- enteenth-century abstract, T(b) Ð see below, p. 33 Ð, the accuracy of whose precise reading has been doubted by the editors. For slightly different information see the edition (often stigmatised as inaccurate) of the abstract by Matthew Kelly, Calendar of Irish saints, the Martyrology of Tallagh; with notices of the patron saints of Ireland, and select poems and hymns (Dublin [1857]) xvii. That Cairpre Crom was intended is strongly suggested by a scholium to O (in MS F) (Stokes, Félire Óengusso 90-1), to which Hennig drew attention (‘Studies in the Latin texts’ 81) and which appears to represent a variant version of T’s entry for 6 March: ‘Coirpri Crom ocus Mael Ruain ocus Maeldubh ocus Muadán ocus Odhrán ocus Iulian ó Cill ingen léir Léinín i nUí Briúin Cualann in hoc die’. 85 Colgan subsequently gave him his correct title of bishop: Acta sanctorum 581. For the primary record see CS 176-7 (899.4, where he is Cairpre Crom) and 178-9 (904.5, where he is Cairpre Cam); AFM I 552-3 (894.6) and 558-9 (899.2), where the epithet is in both instances crom. For a monumental inscription at Clonmacnoise (OR. DO CORBRIV CHRVMM) see Corpus inscriptionum insularum celticarum, ed. R. A. S. Macalister (2 vols, Dublin 1945-9) II 44. (For another Coirpre Crom see Kenney, Sources 381, no. 369.) On the event of 899 see David N. Dumville, Councils and synods of the Gaelic early and central Middle Ages (Cambridge 1997) 34. Ó Riain, ‘The Tallaght martyrologies’ 24 n. 16, has doubted the identity of the com- memorand in T at 6 March with the Clonmacnoise bishop, an equation deriving from Félire Uí Gormáin. 86 Acta sanctorum 4, continuing from the previous quotation (n. 83): ‘non tamen S. Cormaci aliàs celeberrimi viri, putà Regis Archepiscopi, et Martyris, qui occubuit an. 903 vel vt alij 908 [n]ec alicuius qui ab an. 900 [v]ixerit.’ For Cormac’s death, see for example, AU 356-7 (908.3). 87 One entry under 21 October contains an extra 233 names! FÉLIRE ÓENGUSSO: PROBLEMS OF DATING 33 and places is fraught with danger. In sum, until much more work has been done on T, its value in relation to O remains unquantifiable. Nevertheless, some of the major problems must be addressed here because the evidence of T has been made central to the dating of O. The principal witness to T is the Book of Leinster, itself a vast compilation of texts.88 T(l), if we may so designate that version, suf- fers from two types of lacuna. The physical loss of four folios has deprived us of its text for 30 January-10 March (and most of 11 March), most of 20 May, 21 May-31 July (and part of 1 August), and 1 November-16 December.89 An earlier fault in the transmission has led to the loss of a block of text from the middle of 1 September to the middle of 4 September.90 (Furthermore, some physical damage to the manuscript has made a few entries in the early part of the text difficult or impossible to read.)91 Part of the physical losses may be retrieved by reference to a seven- teenth-century copy of T. This, now preserved in Brussels Ð let us call it T(b) – is an abstract of the ‘Irish’ sections of T, with occasional saints from the ‘Roman’ sections included by oversight.92 The final physical lacuna in T(l) is not covered by T(b), however, with the result that the whole text for 1 November-16 December has been lost. T(b) also shares with T(l) the textual loss at 1-4 September, which indicates either that the two witnesses descend from a shared hyparchetype, or that T(b) is a derivative of T(l). Furthermore, it is clear that the ulti- mate source of T(b) was a copy which shared errors with T(l) and which was abraded in the opening sections of the text where T(l) is seen to be abraded today.93 However, the editors of T showed that the situation is yet more complex, for T(b) is in fact a composite text. The text of T(b) as far as 30 October (but not the end of the entry)

88 See above, n. 15. 89 For these lacunae see Best and Lawlor, Martyrology of Tallaght 13, 22, 44, 59, 86. 90 ibid. 68. 91 ibid. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 (28, 29, 31 December; 2, 3, 8-12, 15 January). 92 Brussels, Bibliothèque royale, MS 5100-5104 (507), folios 182-197 (formerly 209-224), described ibid. xv-xix, and more fully by Stokes, Félire Húi Gormáin, vii-xviii. This manuscript provided the first text of T to be published: Kelly, Calendar xi-xl. It could have been the quarto manuscript of T in Colgan’s study when he died: for the evidence see Franciscan MS A 34 (University College Dublin), published by J. T. Gilbert in Fourth report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts (London 1874) 611, but the editors of T thought not (Best and Lawlor, Martyrology of Tallaght xvi, n. 1). For stray ‘Roman’ saints see ibid. 22 (10 March: Siluester ep.), 47 (3 June: Etchii, Zefani). 93 ibid. xviii, on shared errors; xiv, xxii, on abrasion. 34 DAVID N. DUMVILLE is in the hand of Míchél Ó Cléirigh. He then wrote: ‘Ní fhuarus an cuid ele don martarlaic san seanleabar i cCill Dara …’ (‘I did not find the rest of the martyrology in the old book at Kildare’); this note now breaks off with what may be a date, cut away by a binder.94 (Ó Cléirigh’s transcript has been thought to be a fair copy of a rough version made at Kildare itself.)95 Another scribe, taken by the editors of T to be John Colgan, completed October and then added 17-31 December, describing his transcript as Asan leabar mór so síos (‘From the big book what follows’).96 This scribe and others made annotations and minor additions throughout T(b).97 It is clear there- fore that T(b) had two sources. The first was a manuscript found by Ó Cléirigh at Kildare. From Colgan’s other references to the detached portion of the Book of Leinster (Franciscan MS A 3 (University College Dublin)) and from what it evidently then (as now) lacked, it is clear that his leabhar mór was a transcript of T(l).98 T(b) is organised differently from T(l) in that its beginning is at 1 January rather than 25 December. We must suppose that the Kildare manuscript Ð let us call it T(k) Ð presented a reorganised version of T, but nonetheless derivative of T(l), as shared textual faults show.99 T(k) was drawn from T(l) in its once complete condition (complete at least in respect of the first two lacunae), but by the time when Ó Cléirigh saw it T(k) had lost the end of the entry for 30 October and everything which once followed. It seems almost certain that the Kildare manu- script was one to which Colgan referred elsewhere in a document written (and perhaps sent to Sir James Ware) before 1643: Sed audio aliud extare exemplar in finibus Lageniae penes quendam Presbyterum qui si recte nomen retinuerim vocatur Donaldus Coemhanach mac Briain Ruaidh, quem nunc audio obiisse, et codicem illum retineri apud eius cognatos. Rem mihi longe gratum, sed et Deo eiusque sanctis gratiorem faceret, qui mihi transcriptum mitteret.100 94 ibid. xvi. 95 ibid. xix. 96 ibid. xvi, xix. 97 ibid. xvi. 98 ibid. xvi, n. 1, it is shown that Colgan’s leabhar mór was a paper manuscript in folio, in his study when he died (see above, n. 92). 99 ibid. xviii. However, there is evidence that the Book of Leinster itself was at the Franciscan house in Kildare in 1627: Best et al., Book of Leinster I, xii-xiii. If T(k) was indeed T(l) at Kildare, then Ó Cléirigh must have reorganised as well as excerpted the text: we must await a new edition of T(b) for further progress on this point. 100 Best and Lawlor, Martyrology of Tallaght xi-xii. FÉLIRE ÓENGUSSO: PROBLEMS OF DATING 35 Colgan referred in his Acta sanctorum, published in 1645, to two copies of T which reperta sint diebus nostris in Hibernia, quorum vnum mutilum penes nos Louanij extat in antiquissimo Codice membraneo, et alterum ex quo sanctos Hiberniæ iam excerptos accepimus, in dies expectamus.101 The former was T(l); the latter, presumably never received at Leuven except in Ó Cléirigh’s copy, we must suppose to be T(k).102 All this may be summed up in a diagram: T

additions

loss of 1-4/9

T(l)

T(k) Colgan’s leabhar mór

Ó Cléirigh: (lost) transcript 1

T(b)

Tinbroeck O’Curry transcript (1847)103 transcript (1850)104

Kelly’s edition (1857) 101 Colgan, Acta sanctorum 582, n. 10 (not p. 583, as stated by Best and Lawlor, Martyrology of Tallaght, xi). 102 T(k) was Ó Cléirigh’s ‘old book’ (n. 94, above). We cannot be certain that it was a parchment manuscript (the conclusion drawn ibid. xviii). Since we do not know when the portion of the Book of Leinster containing T (Franciscan MS A 3) was detached from the rest of the manuscript (although there is a possibility that it was in 1583: ibid. xiv), the Kildare copy could have been made after the separation. It is not clear why the editors of T thought T(k) datable ‘not later than the fifteenth century’ (ibid. xviii). The outer limits of date are in principle c. 1200 and c. 1600. 103 Kelly, Calendar iii. 104 ibid.; cf. Best and Lawlor, Martyrology of Tallaght xvii. 36 DAVID N. DUMVILLE We have therefore a text dependent ultimately on that in the Book of Leinster (written in the second half of the twelfth century) but in parts (30 January-11 March, 20 May-1 August) mediated to us in abbreviated form at third hand. As I have already noted, John Colgan was the first modern scholar to publish a discussion of the date of T. In summary, he concluded (from exactly the same textual basis available to us) that it belonged to the brief period between the deaths of Cairpre Crom, bishop of Clonmacnoise, and Bishop Cormac mac Cuilennáin, overking of Munster, in other words and in our terms within the period 904-8.105 The latter terminus admittedly derives from an argument from silence and also relies on a supposition that Cormac’s cult began immediately upon his death in battle.106 However, Colgan started from a belief that the text originated at Tallaght in the time and at the hands of Mael Ruain and Oengus Ð that is, before 792.107 He had therefore to conclude that T was augmented in various ways until around 900, after which, he thought, the text ceased to grow. His remarks provoked controversy in the eighteenth and nineteenth cen- turies. Edward Ledwich remarked, ‘No proof is brought of this con- jecture, so that the [further] antiquity of this work rests solely on [Colgan] and is opposed by the strongest external and internal proofs.’108 This was to overstate the point, but there is a real issue here. Colgan and, following him, modern scholarship have essen- tially relied on the preface to Félire Uí Gormáin with its author’s deduction that O depended on T;109 Mael Muire Ua Gormáin pre- sumably had before him a copy of T no longer extant, and it is of

105 Cf. above, nn. 83-6. 106 For some remarks on Cormac and his cult see Gwynn et al., Ireland’s desert-fathers xliii-xliv. For Cormac as a ‘true ’ and his body, interred at Dísert Diarmata, as worker of miracles, there is a mid-eleventh-century witness: FAI 150-63 (¤423), especially 156-9. 107 Colgan, Acta sanctorum 5, where he quoted the following title, ‘Incipit Marty- rologium Ængusij filij Hua-obhlenij et Molruani hic’. The title of T(b) was reported by Stokes (Félire Óengusso xxvii) as ‘Incipit Martira Oenghuis maic Oiblein 7 Maelruain (h)íc’. 108 Edward Ledwich, Antiquities of Ireland (Dublin 1804) 60. 109 Colgan, Acta sanctorum 5. FÉLIRE ÓENGUSSO: PROBLEMS OF DATING 37 course possible that that lacked the commemorations of Mael Ruain and all subsequent saints recorded in T(l).110 We, however, cannot start from the presumption that T began as a work of the late eighth century. Indeed, Pádraig Ó Riain has argued that we should place its origin within the period 828-33.111 Any con- clusion which places T before 904 must depend on showing why entries which are thereby stigmatised as additions should be so regarded. It is not easy to see how that can be done. In his analysis of the date of T Ó Riain has suggested that we should identify as additions commemorations of ninth-century saints which stand at the end of entries. In his view this would result in stig- matisation of those of Bishop Oengus ua Oíbleáin (11 March; year of death unknown), the presumptive author of O, and Feidlimid mac Crimthainn, overking of Munster (†847), the sole Irish saint com- memorated on 28 August.112 This is a rough-and-ready method. Even the hypothetical original T had to have a final name in its ‘Irish’ sec- tion for each day Ð where such occurred.113 A supplementary criterion is therefore necessary. But any attempt to formulate one runs into formidable problems of logic. Ó Riain has arrived at 828 as a terminus post quem by identifying in T a substantial group of figures who died in the period 803-28: Airfhinnán of Tallaght (10 February 803); Elair of Loch Cré (7 September 807); Dímmán / Modímóc of Araid (26 April 811), Flann mac Cellaig of Finglas (21 January 812), Eochaid of Tallaght (28 January 812), Fairchellach of Fore (10 June 814), perhaps Mael Canaig of Louth (18 September 815), perhaps Cuimnech of Finglas (14 March 825), Diarmait of Dísert Diarmata (21 June 825), Blath- mac mac Flainn of Iona (24 July 825), Flann mac Foirchellaig of Lismore (21 December 825), Temnán / Teimnén of Linn Duachaill

110 However, Ó Riain (‘The Tallaght martyrologies’ 25) has suggested that, on the contrary, Mael Muire drew his record of ‘native saints principally from what was probably an updated copy of T’. For an apparent error shared by T(l) and Félire Uí Gormáin, see Ó Riain, Anglo-Saxon Ireland 10 n. 52. 111 Ó Riain, ‘The Tallaght martyrologies’ 37-8. 112 ibid. 36. It is rather unsatisfactory to describe Feidlimid as ‘occupying last place’ in the list for 28 August: he is the only commemorand (and is in the nomina- tive case) in the ‘Irish’ list for that day; see Best and Lawlor, Martyrology of Tallaght 66. 113 There is no ‘Irish’ list for 29 August (ibid. 67), for example, and if Feidlimid were an addition to 28 August, the same would apply there too. 38 DAVID N. DUMVILLE (7 August 828).114 Some of these can be recognised as persons named Ð as in contact with Bishop Mael Ruain Ð in the culdee consuetudi- nal texts.115 Two of them stand in final position in the lists for their day in the transmitted text.116 What is more, the commemoration Cairpre Cruim at 6 March is the fourth or fifth of six or seven entries for that day.117 At this point we should note that T(l) carries a body of interlineations, apparently in the same hand as the larger script of most entries. Furthermore, there are glosses embedded in the main text. Both of these types could use- fully be investigated. We should do well to remember Meroney’s Law: ‘the expository ordering reverses the order of deposition, each new annotator leading off with his own opinion.’118 The same can apply to the incorporation of interlined gloss or addition into text: this law is widely applicable thus. But there is scarcely likely to be a sim- ple pattern to the ways in which marginal or intercolumnar additions were incorporated.119 So the last-entry criterion is a blunt weapon. It is worth considering the role of vikings in T. As any reader of Irish chronicles will be aware, vikings contributed greatly to the supply of Gaelic (to mention no others), and it is clear from the totality of source-material that the existing chronicles present a very incom- plete account of that process. In T, Blathmac mac Flainn (†825) and 114 Ó Riain, ‘The Tallaght martyrologies’ 26-36. I have adjusted the days of com- memoration for Airfhinnán and Dímmán / Modímóc to take account of the arguments above (see pp 26, 29). I omit Tigernach of Derryvella and Nuada of Armagh (ibid. 27-8 and 31) as inadequately evidenced. And I have revised the order of the list to make it strictly calendarial. 115 Gwynn et al., Ireland’s desert-fathers, pp xxvii-xxxii. Furthermore, four (to which may be added Bishop Oengus and King Feidlimid) can be found in the later tract, Lucht oentad Mael Ruain (on which see above, n. 73). 116 Airfhinnán (10 February) and Flann of Finglas (21 January): Best and Lawlor, Martyrology of Tallaght 16 and 10. 117 ibid. 21. The order in T(b), the witness at this point, is disturbed, as the second entry, Furbaide, displaced from the end of the fifth or sixth, makes clear. See also n. 84, above. 118 Howard Meroney, ‘The titles of some -tracts’ The Journal of Celtic Studies 2 (1953-8) 189-206 (at p. 193). 119 The explicit variants already incorporated within the text also require investiga- tion: for example, at 11 March (Best and Lawlor, Martyrology of Tallaght 22), the statement relating to King Constantine, nó meic Fergusa do Cruthnechaib, is unlikely to be datable before the mid-tenth century at the earliest; for discussion of the legend see David N. Dumville, ‘Cusantín mac Ferccusa, rí Alban: a misidentified monastic ditch-digger’ Scottish Gaelic Studies 19 (1999) 234-40. Likewise, with reference to the ‘Roman’ section, Hennig argued (‘The sources’ 425-6) that T’s reading at 5 May did not originally say Eutini et non Iustini (Best and Lawlor, Martyrology of Tallaght 39). It is striking that some witnesses to O at that date have Iustinus, while Stokes’s preferred witness (his R1) has Eutimus (Stokes, Félire Óengusso 122 and n. 19). FÉLIRE ÓENGUSSO: PROBLEMS OF DATING 39 Temnán of Linn Duachaill (†828) are representatives of these mar- tyrs.120 But we see vikings elsewhere in T. At 10 August, preceding Mael Ruain’s foundation of Tallaght and heading the list is the fol- lowing entry: Blaani episcopi Cind Garad i nGallgaedelaib.121 Our first evidence for the word Gallgaedel comes from the very middle of the ninth century. Bicultural Gaelic-Scandinavian populations had been created in areas of Scandinavian conquest and settlement, prob- ably first in the Hebrides. That they existed in quantity before the second quarter of the ninth century seems unlikely. That an Irish writer would begin to use their name as a territorial designation before the mid-ninth century seems even more unlikely Ð St Blaan of Kingarth was not himself a figure of the Viking Age. Furthermore, Bute, where Kingarth is situated, is not in an area of probable pri- mary Scandinavian settlement. In other words, this description of Bute’s location is more likely to belong to the tenth century than the ninth; but, in any case, the term itself is unlikely to have been used much before the mid-ninth century. On Ó Riain’s criterion for iden- tification and exclusion of accretions to T, however, this entry could not be considered other than primary.122 If the text as we have it is derivative of a version last augmented in the early tenth century,123 a further question arises about its textual 120 On Teimnén and his death at the hands of vikings (cf. Ó Riain, ‘The Tallaght martyrologies’ 35) see David N. Dumville, The churches of North Britain in the first viking-age (Whithorn 1997) 12-13. 121 For what follows cf. Dumville, Churches of North Britain (especially pp 26-9). For St Blaan, see Best and Lawlor, Martyrology of Tallaght 62. 122 For another troublesome entry in T see 18 February (ibid. 17), where the first ‘Irish’ commemoration is of Colmán in Moray (i mMuríab), further described as ‘to the north of Món(a)’ (fri Móna ituaidh) in what appears to be an incorporated gloss. Was the name Muríab used before the tenth century? Cf. Dumville, Churches of North Britain 36. John Hennig commented (‘Britain’s place’ 20) that the place-names in this entry ‘apparently were not well known’. 123 For the view that it continued to receive additions even until the twelfth century, see Hennig, ‘Britain’s place’ 23. In ‘A feast of all the saints of Europe’ Speculum 21 (1946) 49-66 (at p. 62), he thought the entry at 8 July on St Kilian to be a twelfth-cen- tury addition, but later (idem, ‘Ireland’s place in the history of the function of the mar- tyrology’ Ephemerides Liturgicae 93 (1979) 64-72) he placed the Latin addition ‘hardly earlier than 900’ (p. 64). He concentrated particularly on entries in the nomi- native case, on narrative entries, and on secondary paragraphs (see especially ‘Studies in the Latin texts’ 46-8, 82, 87-8). He took Mamertus at 11 May to date from about 1000 (‘The sources’ 407). He was almost certainly mistaken in thinking Oswine at 19 August to be the latest entry in T (‘Studies in the Latin texts’ 88, n. 30); see instead Ó Riain, Anglo-Saxon Ireland 7-8. In general, Hennig was much too willing, however, to allow absence from O to be a criterion for determining later addition to T (‘Studies in the Latin texts’ 47-8, 82-3, 87, for example); for a contrary view, see above, pp 26-9. 40 DAVID N. DUMVILLE history. There is a sufficiency of information to show that it contains a significant element from Tallaght in its make-up.124

5 January Ioseph eps. Tamlachta (last of five entries) 28 January [812] Eochaid epscop ocus abb Tamlachta (third of six entries) 10 February [803] Airendani ep. Tamlacta (last of five entries) 25 February Croni Tamhlachta (third of four entries) 7 July [792] Maol Ruain eps. Tamlacta (second of five entries) 10 August [774] Mael Ruain cum suis reliquiis sanctorum martirum et uirginum ad Tamlachtain uenit (second of three entries) 11 August [792x803] Aireráin sapientis et abbatis Tamlachta post Mael Ruain (first of eight entries) 6 September125 Aduentus reliquiarum Scéthi filiae Méchi ad Tamlachtain (last of six entries)

The last three entries suggest by their wording that they were writ- ten at Tallaght itself. It is possible, even likely, that some commem- orations without locative indications in T are of saints of Tallaght. But what cannot be said is that there is conclusive evidence to show that the whole text was composed and maintained at Tallaght: we might have expected a greater prominence to be accorded to the house and its saints in such a situation. Furthermore, if we put together a house history of Tallaght from chronicle evidence we find a number of figures who appear not to be commemorated in T. It

124 For the following entries, see Best and Lawlor, Martyrology of Tallaght 5, 13, 16, 19, 54, 62, 68. 125 This entry is preceded by another (ibid. 68) about Sciath: Scíath ó Fhirt Scéithi i mMúscraige trí Maigi; that the translation (whose record follows immediately) was therefore synchronised with the primary feast-day is, however, rendered uncertain by another commemoration at 1 January (ibid. 3: Scéthae uirginis .i. ó Fert Scéithe). FÉLIRE ÓENGUSSO: PROBLEMS OF DATING 41 is possible to suppose that the missing persons all died on 1-3 September, in November, or on 1-16 December, for which we have no text. But that would be a remarkable coincidence, and the evidence of the other martyrologies, particularly that of Mael Muire Ua Gormáin, does not suggest that it is the correct solution.126

774 The foundation of Tamlachta Maíle Ruain [henceforth TMR] [AFM 769.12] 792 Death of (Bishop) Mael Ruain (of Tallaght) [AClon 788.1; AI (792).1; AU 792.1] 803 Death of Airfhinnán, abbot of TMR [AFM 798.3; AU 803.2] 811 The community of Tallaght prevented the celebration of the Fair of Tailtiu by King Aed Oirdnide mac Néill because of the violation of the termon of TMR (by Uí Néill); subsequently King Aed gave them (their full demand and) gifts. [AFM 806.2; AU 811.2] 812 Death of Eochaid, bishop and anchorite, coarb of Mael Ruain / princeps of Tallaght [AFM 807.2; AU 812.2] 824 TMR plundered by the community of Kildare [AI (824).2] 825 Death of Aedán, abbot of TMR [AFM 823.1; ARC ¤228; AU 825.3] 827 Death of Échtgus, coarb of Mael Ruain/princeps of Tallaght [AFM 825.1; AU 827.1]

***

865 Death of Conmal, equonimus / prióir of Tallaght [AFM 863.3; AU 865.6] 868 Death of Daniél, abbot of Glendalough and Tallaght [AFM 866.2; AU 868.3] 870 Death of Comgán Fota, anchorite of Tallaght, daltae of Mael Ruain

126 Examination of Félire Uí Gormáin provides no additional information. See Todd et al., Martyrology of Donegal 188-9 (7 July, s.n. Maelruain) and 320-1 (29 November, s.n. Brenainn), for information that Brendan of Birr and Ma(i)nnsena, his mother, are both buried at Tallaght; however, no Tallaght ecclesiastics known from the chronicle evidence but absent from the earlier martyrologies are commem- orated in this text. 42 DAVID N. DUMVILLE

[AFM 868.5; AU 870.5; FAI ¤384 (A.D. 870), abbot of Tallaght (only)] 874 Death of Torpad, abbot / princeps of Tallaght [AFM 873.1; AU 875.5] 875 Death of Mac Oige, abbot / princeps of Tallaght [AFM 873.1; AU 875.5] 891 Death of Díchull of Tallaght [AFM 889.1] 896 Death of Sechnasach, abbot of TMR [AFM 894.1] 915 Death of Scannlán, (abbot and) bishop / airchinnech of Tallaght [AFM 913.1; AU 915.5; CS 914.4] 939 Death of Mael Domnaig, abbot of Tallaght [AFM 937.1] Death of Laignén, coarb of Ferns and Tallaght [AFM 937.2] 959 Death of Martain, coarb of Coemgen and Mael Ruain [AFM 957.1; AU 959.2, but Mael Ruain not mentioned] 964 Death of Cormac, bishop of Tallaght [AFM 962.3] 966 Drowning of Crunnmael, abbot of Becc Ériu, bishop and fer léginn of Tallaght, at Tochar Echdach [AFM 964.3] 968 Death of Erc Ua Suailén, bishop or abbot of Tallaght [AFM 966.1] In T the foundation and the obits of 792, 803, and 812 are noted, as well as that of Airerán (in the period 792x803).127 The Crón (?) and Bishop Joseph of Tallaght are otherwise unknown to us. But of Abbots Aedán (†825) and Échtgus (†827) we see nothing, as is also the case with all the persons named from 865,128 after the forty-year gap in the record. The suspicion must be that the text ancestral to T(l) left Tallaght within the period 812-25. We may deduce that the liturgical concern with St Sciath, the female saint whose relics were translated (perhaps from Fert Scéithe Ð Ardskeagh, Co. Cork) to Tallaght on one of her feast-days, 6 September,129 dates from the first half of the ninth century. In that 127 See above, p. 26. 128 Unless Comgán céle Dé in T (and O) is to be held to be the Comgán who died in 870: see above, n. 59. 129 See above, p. 40 and n. 125. For the place-name, see Best and Lawlor, Marty- rology of Tallaght 223. FÉLIRE ÓENGUSSO: PROBLEMS OF DATING 43 Tallaght liturgical book, known as the ,130 first written after the death of Mael Ruain (792),131 the principal reviser, Moel Cáich, working (on the evidence of his script) in the first half of the ninth century,132 added a litany including Sciath’s name.133 Perhaps her relics were received before 825. In sum, in the history of T we can point to a phase at Tallaght (pre- sumptively within the period 774-825). We know that T was avail- able to the author of O, who was associated with Mael Ruain of Tallaght:134 the date of O is in question. But we do not yet have a grasp of either T’s subsequent history or T’s prehistory. No evidence has been adduced to show that T was composed at Tallaght, or that the initial original conception of the two-layer martyrology135 belonged to that house rather than to another at an earlier date (or even, hypothet- ically, to another at a date after 812 where its author would on this argument have drawn rather mechanically on a source Ð from Tallaght Ð belonging to the period 812-25 for his entries concerning Tallaght). We must therefore turn briefly to the prehistory of T to see how what is already known affects our perception of what may have been achieved at Tallaght in the late eighth or early ninth century. Pádraig Ó Riain has shown that the version of Martyrologium Hierony- mianum from which T was composed had either been kept and 130 RIA MS Stowe D.ii.3 (no. 1238), folios 12-67; The Stowe Missal, edited by George F. Warner (2 vols, London 1906-15). For further discussion see Gwynn et al., Ireland’s desert-fathers xiii-xiv. 131 Mael Ruain occurs in a to be commemorated (he concludes the sequence of bishops), written by the original scribe of the manuscript. Late 792 is therefore the earliest possible date for the manuscript. See Warner, Stowe Missal I folios 32r-33r; II 15-16. 132 The hand of Moel Cáich shows no trace of the significant changes which occurred in Insular script after about 850. 133 Warner, Stowe Missal I folio 30v, and II 14. 134 Ó Riain, ‘The Tallaght martyrologies’ 25, has written of ‘O, which clearly used the original of T as its main source’. Therein lies one of the central problems of his exposition. What was ‘the original of T’? Is it definable? Was it a work written at Tallaght? He has not attempted to answer these questions. 135 Ó Riain, Anglo-Saxon Ireland 6 and n. 31, has argued that this is not a concept peculiar to T: ‘The “national” additions to the Hieronymian sections contained in the Tallaght texts are admittedly much more substantial than the regional or local addi- tions made in other manuscripts of the [Hieronymian] martyrology; they do not, however, differ from these in any other essential respect’. (The use of a vernacular language is one certain difference, however.) But is this contradicted by his remark (ibid. 3), ‘Unique in its inclusion, at least in its original form, of what Paul Grosjean termed a supplément national, that is to say substantial additions of mostly native saints for each day of the year, the basic Tallaght text represents a breviate edition of the Hieronymian Martyrology’? 44 DAVID N. DUMVILLE augmented until some time within the period 729-67 or newly writ- ten at Iona at that time.136 That version may have left Iona as early as 729; if it remained there in 767, it had probably ceased to be aug- mented.137 It has been noted that at least one other text seems to have been transmitted from Iona near the middle of the eighth century and that we might therefore think of this augmented martyrology as pass- ing to ‘a north-east Ulster monastery’.138 The pedigrees of Mael Ruain and Oengus preserved in the scholia on O and in the collec- tions of saints’ genealogies proffer origins for them in the province of the , but that any of that material is of historical value for the eighth century is a very uncertain proposition.139 The implication of Ó Riain’s work is that a copy of Martyro- logium Hieronymianum was being very substantially augmented with local commemorands at Iona not later than the middle third of the eighth century.140 It left Iona,141 perhaps travelled via ‘north-east Ulster’, and arrived at Tallaght, where within the period 828-33 it served as the exemplar for a version ‘given more or less its surviv- ing form by the addition of a substantial corpus of entries relating to the churches involved [in the culdee movement].142 What this history

136 Ó Riain, Anglo-Saxon Ireland 12-13 (cf. p. 21). 137 The terminus ante quem is provided by the death of Abbot Sléibíne who is not commemorated in T or O (or in Félire Uí Gormáin). That ‘Slebhene mac Conghaile, do chenél gConaill Gulban mic Neill, ab Ia’ is commemorated in Todd et al., Martyrology of Donegal 60-1 (2 March), probably does not affect the argument. 138 Ó Riain, Anglo-Saxon Ireland 13, 21 (and n. 111 on Ulster). Compare the ear- lier conclusions of Máire Herbert, Iona, Kells, and Derry (Oxford 1988) 62-3, on the point. It is tempting to wonder, in connexion with a possible Ulster dimension, about T’s entry at 27 March, Aduentus reliquiarum Sillani (Best and Lawlor, Martyrology of Tallaght 27): who was Sillán and where were his relics translated from and to? 139 Stokes, Félire Óengusso 8-9 (Oengus) and 166-7 (Mael Ruain), for the scholia; Ó Riain, Corpus genealogiarum sanctorum 252 (s.n. Máel Ruain m. Colmáin) and 262 (s.n. Óengus m. Óengoba), for the genealogical literature. For discussion, see Gwynn et al., Ireland’s desert-fathers xxv (Mael Ruain) and p. xiv, n. 25 (Oengus). 140 Perhaps not earlier than 716: Ó Riain, Anglo-Saxon Ireland 21. But it is not clear to me that Martyrologium Hieronymianum would have been unnecessary before ‘the adoption there of the Roman Easter’. 141 Perhaps in a copy: ibid. 142 ibid. For the manuscript from Iona as exemplar at Tallaght, see ibid. 13. The dat- ing within the period 828-33 is Ó Riain’s, deriving from his discussion in ‘The Tallaght martyrologies’. While he has advanced a clear and self-contained argument for dating O within the period 829-33 (see above, pp 37-8, where I have also expressed my doubts about it), dating T after 828 can only be achieved by stigmatis- ing later entries as additions and by denying any likelihood that entries of people who died in or before 828 are themselves additions: in the present state of knowledge, these two conditions seem not to be realisable. FÉLIRE ÓENGUSSO: PROBLEMS OF DATING 45 leaves unclear is where the work of drastically cutting down the basic Hieronymian text was done and where the conception of a gen- erous ‘Irish’ section for each day was achieved. On the evidence pre- sented by Ó Riain, Iona could have been the place where the distinctive shape of T was conceived. All this leads us to another aspect of work on T and its martyro- logical relatives. In seeking to understand the function of T, John Hennig developed the theory that the lists of each day’s saints were developed for insertion in a prayer for all the saints and in particular for the saints of the day.143 This theory arose from study of the Stowe Missal in which the first prayer under the heading Misa apostolorum et martirum et sanctorum et sancta(ta)rum uirginum provided for the insertion of names of those quorum hodie sollemnitas a nobis cele- bratur.144 This would account for the absence, from the ‘Roman’ sec- tions of T, of the place-names and most of the narrative matter which would have been found in its ultimate Hieronymian source.145 In other words, ‘T is to be regarded basically as a supplement to the Stowe Misa apostolorum’.146 It was itself a liturgical book.147 In so far as the Stowe Missal is taken to be a Tallaght manuscript, the two sources explain one another. However, Hennig adopted a very restrictive interpretation of his own theory: ‘the non-Irish paragraphs … are the original body of T, and this is the book which was used to supplement the Stowe Misa apostolorum.’148 Yet over time the narrative mode proper to the mar- tyrological genre reasserted itself in the development of T: ‘The insertion of [such] entries shows that by that time T had ceased to have its original function … The complete cessation of this function is marked by the addition of the Irish sections, which are patently unsuitable for liturgical purposes from the mere fact that they are largely in Irish.’149 Finally, T’s ‘liturgical [function] had fallen into

143 Hennig, ‘The function’, especially pp 321-8. 144 Warner, Stowe Missal I, folio 38r, and II 19. 145 Hennig, ‘The function’ 316-17, 324. 146 ibid. 325. 147 ibid. (it ‘was read at the altar between the Canon’). 148 ibid. 325-6. 149 ibid. 326. Hennig thought that this development would provide a terminus ante quem for the dating of the Stowe Missal, which was unfortunate since that cannot be placed before 792 (see n. 131, above). 46 DAVID N. DUMVILLE disuse when Oengus converted it into his félire; at that time the Irish entries had been added’.150 This restriction of Hennig’s original insight seems self-defeating. It is driven essentially by the proposition that Irish personal names inflected in Irish rather than in Latin and Irish place-names were at that time unacceptable in the liturgy. This cannot, however, be demonstrated,151 and it is in any case not clear how much of the wording supplementary to the personal names became part of the text at the same time. Rather, it would be preferable to allow that Hennig’s theory (which alone to date has explained the bald nature of the ‘Roman’ sections of T) should be extended to comprehend the names in genitival form in the ‘Irish’ lists for each day. This does not solve the problem of T’s origin, however; for, unless we suppose the usage (of that part of the Stowe Missal which provoked Hennig to formulate his hypothesis) to have been new or unique around 800, we have as yet no reason to attribute it to the of Tallaght at that date rather than, say, to the monks of Iona in the earlier eighth century. There is much work still to do. The sources of O included a lost version of T. The author of O completed his work not earlier than 797; he wrote within the Old Irish linguistic period. He might indeed have written early in the period 797- c. 900,152 but at the moment such a conclusion rests on negative evidence Ð our failure to identify, or the genuine absence of, persons who died after 797. But when T was first composed Ð that is, when that remarkable text first assumed its distinctive shape Ð is still quite unknown. The text transmitted to us is a derivative version of tenth-century date in a twelfth-century copy (and some of that copy we see only at third hand, some not at all). A provisional revision of the stemma which Pádraig Ó Riain pub- lished in 1990 may be offered.153

150 ibid. 328. Hennig asserted that Oengus nevertheless remembered T’s liturgical uses, but his citations from O do not seem to establish the point. 151 Cf. David N. Dumville, Liturgy and the ecclesiastical history of late Anglo- Saxon England: four studies (Woodbridge 1992) 128-9. 152 For the later terminus see nn 5 and 51 above. It is driven by linguistic consider- ations. Any earlier date would simply represent the extent of Oengus’s lifespan (cf. n. 59 above, for food for thought). 153 Ó Riain, ‘The Tallaght martyrologies’ 23 (I have merely reproduced Ó Riain’s statement of relationships of the Drummond [Dr] and Torino [Tr] texts, whose rela- tionship to O I have not as yet studied). FÉLIRE ÓENGUSSO: PROBLEMS OF DATING 47

Augmented Martyrologium Hieronymianum (Iona, 729x767)

T (hypothetical ‘original’: location and date unknown)

T (at Tallaght, 774x825)

O (797xc. 900) augmentation154

loss (1-4 Sept.) O (prefaced and annotated, c. 1000xc. 1200)

T(l)GDrTr

I hope that this helps to focus discussion, but I am sure that it is likely to undergo further revision. The history of the culdee movement has gathered a great deal of scholarly baggage over the last couple of generations, a good part of which may need to be shed. That this strict ascetic tendency was a reform movement is one such misperception.155 That the culdees of Mael Ruain’s lifetime at Tallaght were keenly interested in liturgy, an interest which they may indeed have transmitted to the next gen- eration and to culdees elsewhere, is made certain by the evidence of the consuetudinal literature produced by that next generation:156 however, that an aspect of such interest was the creation of T is something which has long been assumed but never demonstrated. While O belongs to that milieu with reasonable certainty, the con- clusion is not automatically extendable to T; just as we cannot use T(l) to date O, so too there is little scope for using O to date or

154 The process of augmentation no doubt continued over a long period, perhaps even down to the time of production of T(l). While it is clear that a post-Tallaght copy of T was used in the process of annotating O (cf. n. 84, above, for example), in the present poor state of knowledge of the scholia one cannot rule out the possibility that a plurality of scholiasts at different times and places had access to various ver- sions of T. 155 Gwynn et al., Ireland’s desert-fathers xxxiv-xli. 156 ibid., passim. 48 FÉLIRE ÓENGUSSO: PROBLEMS OF DATING localise T. O is a monument of Old Irish literature, but it is little eas- ier to date than many of the others.157

REFERENCES AClon The Annals of Clonmacnoise, Denis Murphy (Dublin 1896) AFM Annála ríoghachta Érenn: Annals of the kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters, ed. and trans. John O’Donovan. (7 vols, Dublin 1856) AI The Annals of Inisfallen (MS. Rawlinson B. 503), ed. and trans. Seán Mac Airt. (Dublin 1951) ARC ‘The Annals of Roscrea’, ed. D. Gleeson and Seán Mac Airt, PRIA 59 C (1957-9) 137-80 AU The Annals of Ulster (to A.D.1131), vol. I, ed. and trans. Seán Mac Airt and Gearóid Mac Niocaill (Dublin 1983) CS Chronicum Scotorum, ed. and trans. W. M. Hennessy (London 1866) FAI Fragmentary Annals of Ireland, ed. and trans. J. N. Radner (Dublin 1978)

DAVID N. DUMVILLE Girton College, Cambridge

157 I am indebted to Pádraig Ó Riain for his great generosity in reading a draft of this paper and providing constructive criticism. The paper has also benefited from John Carey’s critical eye and from a careful reading by my colleague Caitríona Ó Dochartaigh. BAILE IN SCÁIL AND BAILE BRICÍN

BAILE IN SCÁIL1 (henceforth BIS) has been profitably compared with other tales, most notably with Baile Chuind.2 Correspondences have also been noted between BIS and Senchas Fagbála Caisil, Tucait Baile Mongáin and Echtrae Chormaic.3 Some similarity has been noted4 between BIS and Baile Bricín5 (henceforth BBr) in the matter of the use of kennings, and this has prompted me to compare the two compositions in their entirety. To begin with a brief summary may be given of the narrative of BIS.6 Conn Cétchathach was on the ramparts of Tara with his three druids and his three poets. He leapt on a stone which cried out under his feet. After a delay of fifty-three days, Cessarn, his chief poet, explained that the name of the stone was fál and that the number of its roars was equal to the number of kings of Conn’s seed who would rule over Ireland. Then a great fog descended and a horseman approached, who made three casts at them. Upon learning Conn’s identity, the horseman ceased and invited him to his dwelling. A young girl was in the house in a crystal chair beside a silver vat full of red ale with a golden crown on her head and with a beautiful

1 The version of this text in British Library MS Harley 5280 is edited by Kuno Meyer, ‘Baile in Scáil’ ZCP 3 (1901) 457-66. He edited the latter part of the version in Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Rawlinson B 512 in ‘Das Ende von Baile in Scáil’ ZCP 12 (1918) 232-8 (with corrigenda in ZCP 13 (1921) 150), and the beginning in ‘Der Anfang von Baile in Scáil’ ZCP 13 (1921) 371-82. This section was re-edited by Rudolf Thurneysen, ‘Baile in Scáil’ ZCP 20 (1935) 213-27. 2 Gerard Murphy, ‘On the dates of two sources used in Thurneysen’s Heldensage’ Ériu 16 (1952) 145-56 (pp 150-1); John Carey, ‘The narrative setting of Baile Chuinn Chétchathaig’ Études Celtiques 32 (1996) 189-201 (pp 190-1). 3 R. Mark Scowcroft, ‘Abstract narrative in Ireland’ Ériu 46 (1995) 121-58 (p. 131 n. 47); John Carey, ‘On the interrelationships of some Cín Dromma Snechtai texts’ Ériu 46 (1995) 71-92 (pp 74-7); Kevin Murray, ‘Baile in Scáil and Echtrae Chormaic’ in Ogma: essays in Celtic studies in honour of Próinséas Ní Chatháin, ed. Michael Richter and Jean-Michel Picard (Dublin 2002) 195-9. 4 Edel Bhreathnach, ‘Temoria: caput Scotorum?’ Ériu 47 (1996) 67-88 (p. 79 n. 76). Cf. also Breandán Ó Buachalla, ‘Aodh Eanghach and the Irish king-hero’ in Sages, saints and storytellers: Celtic studies in honour of Professor James Carney, ed. Donnchadh Ó Corráin, Liam Breatnach and Kim McCone (Maynooth 1989) 200- 32 (p. 229 n. 58). 5 Kuno Meyer, ‘Baile Bricín’ ZCP 9 (1913) 449-57. 6 See also the translation of the opening section of the tale in Eugene O’Curry, Lectures on the manuscript materials of ancient Irish history (Dublin 1861; repr. 1995) 385-90 and the convenient summaries in Myles Dillon, (Chicago 1948; repr. Dublin 1994) 107-9 and Carey, ‘The narrative setting’ 190-1. 50 KEVIN MURRAY phantom alongside on his throne.7 The phantom identified himself as Lug mac Ethnenn, and he told Conn that he had come to relate to him the duration of his kingship and that of every one of his descendants. It is stated in the text that the girl was the Sovereignty of Ireland. While dispensing the ale from the vat, she asked to whom each drink should be given. Lug answered her by naming each of the descen- dants of Conn who would be king of Tara. Cessarn wrote down this information in ogam on four large rods of yew. Then Lug and his house disappeared, but the vat of ale, the dispensing and drinking vessels, and the yew rods remained with Conn. This introductory section of the tale (§§1-9) is complete in itself. The remaining part of the text (§§10-65) is concerned with listing the kings prophesied by Lug along with their outstanding achievements. BBr is concerned with revelations made by an angel to Bricín (or Bricíne) of Túaim Dreccon.8 The text may be summarised briefly as follows: One night Bricín heard a cry of the inhabitants of heaven celebrating Easter, and he asked God to send him a messenger with tidings of His sovereignty. In response, an angel came from God to reveal to Bricín the names of all future Irish churchmen of note, and to inform him about his own future. The listing of the famous clerics, along with sundry details about them, occupies the bulk of the text. The narrative concludes with a note on the role of St Patrick among the Irish on Judgement Day. There are obvious structural similarities between BIS and BBr. Their introductory sections present supernatural figures as convey- ors of knowledge. In BIS Lug names the descendants of Conn who will hold the kingship of Tara, while in BBr the angel enumerates future important ecclesiastics. Thus, figures from beyond the mortal world are used to invest both prophecies with authority and credibil- ity. In BIS the lengths of the reigns of various kings are given, in BBr the years assigned to prominent churchmen are noted. The enumer- ation of the kings in BIS, and of the clerics in BBr, occurs in response to specific questions in both texts, as follows:

BIS §9: In tand didiu luid ind ingen don dáil, asbert friu: ‘Cía dia tibérthæ ind airdech cosin derglaith?’ 7 frisgart in scál dí íarum.

7 From the context, it would seem that the horseman (marcach) and the phantom (scál) are one and the same personage. 8 Parish of Tomregan on the border of counties Cavan and Fermanagh. BAILE IN SCÁIL AND BAILE BRICêN 51 When, therefore, the girl went to dispense [the ale] she said to them: ‘To whom shall the cup of red ale be given?’, and the phantom answered her then.

BBr §§ 3-4: ‘Cest tra, a bennachtoi’, ol Bricíni prisan aingiul, ‘cía mac bethad cétnoi tic díuh sund ar tús? Innid dam co lér!’ ‘Maith ém’, ol in t-aingel.

‘A question moreover, o blessed one’, said Bricín to the angel, ‘who is the first righteous man who will come here in the beginning. Tell me clearly!’ ‘Willingly’, said the angel.

The two questions are similarly formulated to elicit similar list-type answers. The introductory section of BIS, §§1-9, is written in prose; the remainder of the text is a mixture of poetry and prose, and incorpo- rates an earlier rhetorical source. BBr is prose throughout, apart from some verse in §40, which is similar in style to that found in BIS. The BBr verse and accompanying prose do not reflect common prosimet- rum constructions in medieval Irish literature, with the prose repeat- ing the information contained in the poetry (or vice-versa), or with the verse used for dialogue.9 Instead, the verse functions, much as the poetry in BIS does, as the provider of new and different information, only occasionally echoed in the prose. The versification consists of rhyming couplets of little complexity. Each line is heptasyllabic, may end on words of one, two or three syllables, may contain occasional alliteration, and the rhyme is often imperfect. It has been observed by Myles Dillon that BIS is a composite text.10 The versification, appearing repeatedly throughout BIS, constitutes one

9 For examination of prosimetrum in medieval Irish see Proinsias Mac Cana, ‘Notes on the combination of prose and verse in early Irish narrative’ in Early Irish literature – media and communication / Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit in der frühen irischen Literatur, ScriptOralia 10, ed. Stephen N. Tranter and Hildegard L. C. Tristram (Tübingen 1989) 125-47 (pp 130-2; 136-8). 10 Myles Dillon, The cycles of the kings (Oxford 1946; repr. Dublin 1994) 12: BIS ‘appears to be a conflation of two distinct prophecies’. This is an opinion which was first put forward by Thurneysen (ZCP 20 (1935) 215): ‘Ich habe vielmehr den Eindruck, daß ursprünglich zwei Quellen, zwei Weissagungen ineinandergearbeitet worden sind, eine “retorische” und eine metrische, besonders die Schlachten aufzäh- lende; aber die zweite wurde nur mit Auswahl verwertet, nur ausgezogen, nicht voll- ständig aufgenommen.’ 52 KEVIN MURRAY of the sources used by its compiler. Because it only appears once in BBr §40, however, it is impossible to say whether the verse passage constitutes an external source utilised by the compiler of BBr or rep- resents his own best poetic efforts. As mentioned at the outset, kennings are present in both BBr and BIS. Many of the names are disguised in these kennings which take the form of words or phrases, often laudatory in nature. They are much more plentiful in BBr, being present throughout the composi- tion, while in BIS they are only regularly utilised from §51 to the end, with occasional use elsewhere.11 In BIS §§51-58, the kennings refer to known historical personages whose names are also given in the text, occasionally as glosses. From §59 to the end (§65), how- ever, the names associated with the kennings in BIS cannot be mar- ried with any confidence to historical personages, while some of them, e.g. Áed Engach (§62) and Fland Cinuch (§65), seem to be obvious literary creations. In the case of BBr the clerics are only referred to by their kennings; very little attempt is made to explicitly link the characters in question to actual names, historical or other- wise.12 There are only three similarities between the kennings in the two texts. In fubthairi of BBr §6 is paralleled by mac ind Fubthairi of BIS §13; in tóebfoda (rendered variously in BBr §11, §26 and §49) is paralleled by tóebfota Temra of BIS §17; and in dondainech of BBr §29 is paralleled by dondainech Dabaill of BIS §62.13 The majority of the kennings in BBr, however, are without parallel in BIS. On initial examination, the usefulness of BBr as a prophetic text seems limited, arising from the fact that the clerics therein are

11 Throughout BIS, however, there is a repeated use of epithets, which function similarly to the kennings, except that they are not used to conceal the identity of the figure being referred to (e.g. mórbrethach, §13; rúanaid, §35; cailech, §41). Some of these epithets are among the comparanda for the kennings from BBr. 12 Among the exceptions are Fothad na Canóine §43 and Dúnchad húa Bruin §51. Two poems preserved in LL (The Book of Leinster, formerly Lebar na Núachongbála, ed. R. I. Best, O. Bergin, M. A. O’Brien and A. O’Sullivan (6 vols, Dublin 1954-84) III ll 18811-19057) are ascribed to Fothad na Canóine (fl. c. 800?). Dúnchad húa Bruin may possibly be equated with Dunchad H. Braen, comarba Ciarain, optimus scriba 7 relegiosissimus, do ecaib i nArd Macha ina ailithri mentioned in AU (The annals of Ulster (to A.D. 1131), ed. Seán Mac Airt and Gearóid Mac Niocaill (Dublin 1983)) s.a. 989.1. For a narrative connected with his time in Armagh, see Kuno Meyer, ‘Mitteilungen aus irischen Handschriften: Wunderthaten des Dúnchad húa Bráin in Armagh’ ZCP 3 (1901) 35-6. 13 In fubthairi of BBr §6 refers to a cleric named Tanuidi mac Uidir; tóebfota Temra of BIS §17 refers to Echu Mugmedóin; and dondainech Dabaill of BIS §62 refers to Áed Engach. The other kennings noted remain unidentified. BAILE IN SCÁIL AND BAILE BRICêN 53 generally only referred to by their kennings. The lack of specific detail lessens its impact significantly. However, this is counteracted by the author’s judicious use of placenames. He makes obvious and repeated references to places of ecclesiastical importance, and thus allows the audience to equate the kenning in question with clerical names associated with these important places. A similar approach to placenames is detectable in BIS where, in the historical sections at least, the extent of a king’s affiliations, strivings, attainments and claims is often delimited by the placenames with which he is associ- ated in the text. Some of the onomastic references, however, are not amenable to this interpretation. It is impossible to say whether this is owing to misinformation on the part of the compiler or to our lack of knowledge about various kings’ careers.14 Apart from their shared thematic structure and use of kennings, there are two other important connections between BIS and BBr. Firstly, there is the question of scribal transmission. Both texts are to be found in Harley 5280,15 a manuscript which was written by Gilla Ríabhach Ó Cléirigh. An incomplete copy of BIS is found at fo. 71a – 72b,16 while BBr is located at fo. 46b – 48a. Flower dates this man- uscript to the early part of the sixteenth century.17 On fo. 71a, above the text of BIS, Gilla Ríabhach gives his date of writing as in dard- ain iar mbelltine, while on fo. 46b the heading over BBr reads: Baili Bricin sund mesi an gillo riabach. Secondly, there is a close textual link between the two stories. BIS §62 contains the earliest known reference to the often-prophesied ideal king of Ireland, Áed

14 For example, in §51 of BIS, the career of Áed Findlíath mac Néill of Cenél nEógain is briefly noted. The placenames evoked may be explained within the con- text of his kingship. There is one exception to this, however. His place of death is given as Ráith Adomnæ, instead of the more common Druim Inesclainn (Dromiskin, Co. Louth), which is noted in AU 879.1. Ráith Adomnæ has so far eluded identifica- tion. Thus, we must deduce that this information, as provided by BIS, is either incor- rect, or further refines the information in AU, or corrects the identification provided by AU. 15 BIS is also to be found in Rawlinson B 512, while copies of BBr are present in British Library MS Egerton 1782 and TCD MS H. 1. 15. This latter copy, a moderni- sation of the text in Egerton 1782, was not used by Meyer in his edition. 16 It seems clear that Gilla Ríabhach was aware that the copy of BIS was incom- plete, because he left a page and a half blank in the manuscript at the end of his text, presumably for the rest of the tale. 17 Flower, Catalogue of Irish manuscripts in the British Library (formerly British Museum) II (London 1926; repr. Dublin 1992) 298-323 (p. 298). 54 KEVIN MURRAY Engach.18 This section of the prophecy also refers to the birth of a famous cleric during his kingship: Táilcend gignid ’na ré .i. Tipraiti forsíthaigfes co uru hÉrenn (‘a cleric will be born in his reign, i.e. Tipraite who will spread peace to the ends of Ireland’). This mater- ial is paralleled in BBr §57: Bíaid dana in bántipraidiu tor sít[h]aig- fius co hurai Erenn (‘then there will be the blessed Tipraite, a hero who will spread peace to the ends of Ireland’). Further on in the same paragraph the connection with BIS is made explicit: Fri ré Aeda engaig genfius Tibraiti, adbir Baili in Scáil (‘during the reign of Áed Engach, Tipraite will be born, (as) Baile in Scáil says’). It is unclear whether this Tipraite is supposed to be a real or fictitious character.19 For example, the evidence of the Annals of Ulster indicates that there were many famous clerics called Tipraite,20 yet surprisingly there are no records of saints of this name.21 A brief examination of the dates of composition of BIS and BBr is also instructive. As Gerard Murphy remarks, ‘the language of the introductory portion of Baile in Scáil ... on the whole tends to con- firm the belief that its basic framework goes back to the late 9th cen- tury’.22 On the other hand, the language of the remaining portion of the text reveals its compilatory nature, with Old Irish forms pre- served side by side with Middle Irish ones. Francis John Byrne would date this later re-working to the eleventh century.23 Máire Herbert adopts a similar position: ‘I agree with Murphy … that there is an earlier stratum in the text, possibly of the ninth century. The final surviving version … I take to be a revision and updating of the

18 The name is entered into the text as a gloss on the kenning dondainech Dabaill. See Ó Buachalla, ‘Aodh Eanghach’ 202. 19 Because the name occurs in the final section of BIS, where historical personages do not seem to figure, it may be best to take this Tipraite as a fictional character. As noted above, this section of BIS deals with Áed Engach, the ideal king of prophesy. Thus, it may be possible to argue that Tipraite represents his ecclesiastical counter- part, i.e. the ideal cleric. 20 Cf. AU 786.1/795.5, 817.3, 833.4, 851.1, 858.3, 901.2, 913.1, 931.1. The evi- dence points towards Tipraite as a popular clerical name in the ninth century and first half of the tenth century. 21 The lack of evidence in this regard is apparent from the index to Corpus genealo- giarum sanctorum Hiberniae, ed. Pádraig Ó Riain (Dublin 1985) 266. 22 Murphy, ‘On the dates’ 150 n. 1. 23 A new history of Ireland, vol. 9, ed. T.W. Moody, F.X. Martin and F.J. Byrne (Oxford 1984) 190: ‘probably written c. 862, but … has reached us in a redaction made between 1022 and 1036’. BAILE IN SCÁIL AND BAILE BRICêN 55 early eleventh century’.24 A brief analysis of BBr shows a similar mixture of linguistic forms, perhaps an indication that it may also be compilatory in nature.25 There are Old Irish forms26 preserved side by side with many Middle Irish ones.27 It is possible, therefore, to argue for a composition date similar to that of BIS, i.e. a textual core from the late Old Irish period with later re-working, copying and additions accounting for the Middle Irish forms. Based on the assembled evidence, it may be suggested that BBr was composed in conscious imitation of BIS. This would accord with ’s statement that BBr ‘is the ecclesiastical analogue of such dynastic prophecies as Baile an Scáil’.28 Stylistically, it may even be possible to argue that one author composed both baili.29 To support this tentative assertion, one may note (1) the similarity in structure of both; (2) the direct reference to BIS in BBr §57; (3) the similarity in purpose of both compositions; (4) the utilisation of sim- ilar versification in each.30 The primary objection to this interpreta- tion, however, is motivation. What would inspire a scribe, politically motivated enough to re-work BIS in the eleventh century into ‘a statement of advocacy on behalf of the Uí Néill dynasty’,31 to write

24 Máire Herbert, ‘Goddess and king: the sacred marriage in early Ireland’ in Women and sovereignty, ed. Louise Fradenburg (Edinburgh 1992) 264-75 (p. 273 n. 4). 25 Of course this mixture of forms can also be explained in the traditional way, i.e. as reflecting the changes the material has undergone while passing through the hands of various copyists. It must also be admitted that texts of this nature (i.e. those that include lists of information) attract accretions more easily than works of a different type. 26 Old Irish examples include: (i) neuter: Loch nÉrne §20, búaid n-eccna, búaid ngóise, búaid ngensa §43; (ii) conjunction sceo: §§ 20 and 22; (iii) prepositionless datives: mórmáinib, graigip, cairptib, chaingnib, cánib §22; (iv) verbal forms: for- doeblai §22, nenois §31; (v) gen. sg. Slemno §28. 27 Middle Irish examples include: (i) loss of neuter: in cenn óir §53; (ii) loss of Old Irish form of definite article: don (for dond) §25; an §§ 12, 31, 37, etc.; (iii) fri gov- erning dat. instead of acc., §4; (iv) simplification of future forms: benfus, genfius §57; (v) verbal forms: atrubairt §1, ticfaidh §40, adbir §57. 28 Flower, Catalogue of Irish manuscripts 267. I wish to thank Dr Patricia Kelly for bringing this reference to my attention. 29 This was the belief of O’Curry, Manuscript materials 419: ‘It is my opinion, however, that Bricin’s prophecy was written about A.D. 1000; and, probably, by the same person who wrote Baile an Scáil.’ 30 Asmall piece of affirmative evidence may possibly be found in the use of adand- aba, BIS §21 (recte §20): Mór breo adandaba [v.l. atandafa] (‘a great flame which he will kindle’) and adandafa, BBr §21: Adandafa dian chain teora frasai (‘a swift fair-one(?) will set three showers going’). These are the only extant examples known to me of the future 3rd singular of the verb ad-annai ‘kindles, sets going’. 31 Herbert, ‘Goddess and king’ 270. 56 BAILE IN SCÁIL AND BAILE BRICêN or copy BBr, a story in which the central character is from Túaim Dreccon,32 and where no special claim is made with regard to eccle- siastical establishments in Uí Néill territory?33 Perhaps a later copy- ist, such as Gilla Ríabhach, consciously highlighted the likenesses between the texts, thus contributing towards their apparent congru- ence.34 Unfortunately, in these matters, as in many others concerning medieval Ireland, one may only conjecture.35

KEVIN MURRAY University College, Cork

32 Above, n. 8. 33 As Professor Herbert points out to me, however, BBr may simply reflect the desire of a particular fili to display the learned information at his disposal. 34 For this to be true, however, we would have to assume that the copyist had access to the full text (as preserved in Rawlinson B 512), as the comparisons noted are mostly between BBr and the later sections of BIS which are not present in Harley 5280. 35 I wish to thank Professor Máire Herbert for her help with this paper and, espe- cially, the Editor of ÉIGSE for his invaluable guidance and advice. CARMAN, SITE OF ÓENACH CARMAIN: A PROPOSED LOCATION

1. INTRODUCTION

THE word óenach / áenach generally denotes an assembly of people, its derivation from óen (one) reflecting the notion of uniting people on a ritual occasion. Originally, these celebrations were probably funeral rites,1 so that óenach became associated with such renowned burial sites as Tailtiu, Brug na Bóinne and Emain Macha. On occa- sion the word itself became a placename, as in the case of Nenagh, Co. Tipperary (site of Óenach Téite). Among the Laigin of south Leinster, the assembly known as Óenach Carmain was a highly esteemed one. Apart from its burial and assembly associations, Carman was celebrated as a legendary battle-site, where Eochaid Fáeburglas was slain by Fiacha Labrainne,2 Óengus Olmucaid by Énna Airgdech,3 Láegaire Lorc by Cobthach Cáel Breg,4 and where a victory was gained by Cormac Cas, son of Oilill Ólum.5 In common with other burial sites (e.g. Temair, Emain Macha, Cnogba), it was sometimes utilised as a royal residence. The will of Cathaír Már (an ancestor-figure of the Laigin) assigned to the youngest son, Fiacha, the royal residences of Ailenn, Almu, Nás, and famous Carman (Carmon clothach coimgébaid).6 In Lebor na cert ‘the king of valiant Carman’ is an alias for the king of Laigin,7 who was entitled to thirty female slaves and thirty cows from the territories about Carman.8 In 841 Feidlimid mac Crimthainn, a king of Munster who aspired to the kingship of all Ireland, led an expedition into the Laigin heartlands until he reached Carman, obviously to signify his authority over that region.

1 See reference to Baile mac Buain: dogniter a oenuch guba la hUllto (‘his óenach of lamentation was celebrated by the Ulaid’), Revue Celtique 13 (1892) 222. 2 AFM s.a. A.M. 3727. 3 LL 14838-40. 4 CGH 135 b 39-40. 5 An Leabhar Muimhneach, ed. Ó Donnchadha (Baile Átha Cliath [1940]) 67. 6 Lebor na Cert. The Book of Rights, ed. Myles Dillon, ITS vol. 46 (Dublin 1962) 174. 7 ibid. l. 1578. In the introductory poem on the Laigin genealogies in Rawl. B 502, there are two similar references: dúrsab slóig Carmuin ‘resolute champion of the host of Carman’ and bruuis crícha Carmain ‘he conquered the territories of Carman’, CGH 115 a 54, b 18. 8 Lebor na cert l. 128. 58 DIARMUID Ó MURCHADHA However, his rival, mac Áeda of Uí Néill marched against him to Mag Óchtair (near Cloncurry, Co. Kildare) with a large army which routed Feidlimid’s expeditionary force.9 One king of Laigin who had close associations with Carman was mac Muirecáin, who at his death in 909 was described as ‘rex optimus Laginentsium’.10 A lament for him, beginning Mo chen a chlaidib Cherbaill depicts the ceremonial handing down of the sword of kingship from one king to the next. Muirecán had been pre- sented with the sword by his father at the óenach of Ailenn, and hence was referred to as ardríg Alend. In his turn he bestowed it i taig Carman (‘in the house of Carman’)11 on his son, Cerball, referred to as Cerball din Carmain cithach (‘of bedewed Carman’) in a poem celebrating victory in the decisive battle of Belach Mugna in 908.12 Several laments were later composed in his memory; in one his reign is termed flaithius Cerbaill cuir Carmain,13 while in another Dallán grieves for Carman whose roads were now overgrown with grass (liach liom Carman … 7 fér dara róda).14 The Carman games (cluichi Carmuin) were among the auspicious activities recom- mended to the king of Laigin.15 References are also made to Cathaír Carmain,16 Cellach Carmain17 and Bráen Carmain.18

2. THE DINDSHENCHAS POEM

Apart from such claims to fame, it was as a burial-place for the kings of Laigin that Carman was most celebrated. The eighty-one stanzas on ‘Carmun’ in the Metrical Dindshenchas19 form the longest poem in the whole collection, although only the first twenty of these com- prised the original poem, as Tomás Ó Concheanainn has shown by a comparison of the differing internal rhyming systems in the two

9 AU s.a. 841. 10 AU s.a. 909. 11 LL 6830. 12 LL 7544 (with ed. note ‘sic for chithach’); FAI s.a. 908 has ‘chithach’; CS s.a. 907 has ‘cionach’ and AFM s.a. 903 (II 570) ‘cin ach’. 13 MD IV 346. 14 FAI 164; AFM s.a. 904. 15 Book of Lecan, facs 194ra21-2; see Leabhar na gCeart or the Book of Rights, ed. John O’Donovan (Dublin 1847) 4, and Myles Dillon, ‘The taboos of the kings of Ireland’ (based on MS Egerton 1782), PRIA 54 C (1951-2) 1-36. 16 MD III 16. 17 MD IV 346. 18 AFM s.a. 942. 19 MD III 2-24. CARMAN:APROPOSED LOCATION 59 parts.20 Furthermore, many of the verses in the latter section show a noticeably religious orientation, which may indicate clerical author- ship, particularly as what appears to be a closure line at l. 296 (a rep- etition of the opening line) is followed by a further six stanzas,21 the final one being a reflection on the joys of heaven. The poem begins Eistid, a Laigniu na llecht (‘Hearken, ye Leinstermen of the graves’), and, in describing Carman, tells us: ‘a burial-ground of kings is its noble cemetery’ (l. 9). The usual implau- sible origin legend relates how a woman named Carmun, wife of Díbad, came from Athens with her three sons, was captured and died while a hostage with the Túatha Dé Danann. She was given a cere- monial burial in the mound that later bore her name, and it is inter- esting that the lamentation of the Túatha Dé around her grave on that occasion is termed cétna óenach cóir Carmain (‘the first true assembly of Carman’, l. 76) by the poet, whose name is given in some of the manuscripts as Fulartach.22 The second poet placed this event at 580 B.C. and recounted the many kings who had held assemblies there, including sixteen from Carman itself, eight from Dothra, twelve from Maistiu, five from Fid Gaible and six from Raigne. The editor of the poems, Edward Gwynn, notes that the last king to be mentioned in the poem is Diarmait, whom he takes to be Diarmait mac Maíl na mBó (whose reign began in the 1040s) and assumes that the last assembly (óenach dédenach, l. 140) refers to that held by Donnchad mac Gilla Phátraic in 103323 to mark his ascent to the kingship of Laigin, the first of the to do so.24 This accords with ll 185-6: Fa deóid ra clannaib Condla / cluche Carmain dag-comga (‘Lastly by Clanna Condla (i.e. Osraige) [was held] the game of well-protected Carman’). The only later assembly recorded was that held by Conchobar Ua Conchobair

20 Tomás Ó Concheanainn, ‘The three forms of Dinnshenchus Érenn’ Journal of Celtic Studies 3 (1981) 97-9. 21 There appear to be seven, but as Gwynn has noted (MD III 480), the third-last stanza (ll 313-6) is misplaced and should follow l. 288. 22 The same legend in respect of ‘Carmuin 7 aoenach Carmuin’ in the Prose (Rennes) Dindshenchas is followed by an alternative derivation from one Sengarman, slain in a conflict over cows, who begged that over his grave an óenach guba would be celebrated, and that the place would always bear his name – ‘unde Carmun 7 Sen-carmun dicuntur’ (Whitley Stokes, ‘The prose tales in the Rennes Dindshenchas’ Revue Celtique 15 (1894) 272-336 (at p. 311-2)). (In ‘Tipra Sen- Garmna’, Sen-Garman appears as a female warrior associated with Luachair in west Munster, MD III 242-53.) 23 AU s.a. 1033. 24 MD III 471. 60 DIARMUID Ó MURCHADHA Fhailge in 1079.25 Gwynn speculated that the poem may, in fact, have been specially commissioned for that occasion, which would explain the compliment in ll 199-200: ’n-a tosach co saidbri sain / síl Rossa Failgi fégaid (‘at their head with special wealth behold the seed of Ros Failge’). It is noteworthy too that in Acallam na Senórach26 the story of Carman is linked to the Dindshenchas of Adarca Bó Iuchna (also known as Adarca Hua Failgi),27 and one of Iuchna’s daughters is named as Carman i Carman nach mín. The poem as a whole furnishes the most comprehensive descrip- tion of an óenach in Irish literature, material appreciated and utilised by such scholars as Hennessy, d’Arbois de Jubainville, Rhyˆs, Nutt and P. W. Joyce.28 The festivities, held every third year, commenced on the feast of Lugnasad (Hi Kalaind Auguist cen ail, l. 209). Serious matters of state, such as the dues and tributes of the province, were discussed by ‘greybearded men, chieftains in amity’. Ancient tales were recited, as was the dindshenchas of every district in Ireland. But apart from the solemnities, there was horse-racing every day for a week, along with open-air markets and merrymaking to all kinds of music:

Pípai, fidli, fir cengail, cnámfhir ocus cuslennaig, sluag étig engach égair béccaig ocus búridaig.

Pipes, fiddles, gleemen, bones-players and bag-pipers, a crowd hideous, noisy, profane, shriekers and shouters. (ll 257-60)

The exuberance of the main section of the poem tends to exag- gerate the importance of Carman as an assembly site; the more restrained opening section puts it in a better perspective. We have but two records in the annals of óenaig at Carman, both of them in the eleventh century, one held by Donnchad mac Gilla Phátraic in 1033 to celebrate the first accession to the Laigin kingship by a king of Osraige, and the second in 1079 to commemorate in similar fashion

25 AFM s.a. 1079 (II 914). 26 Ed. Whitley Stokes, Irische Texte 4/1 (Leipzig 1900) ll 1274-6. 27 Stokes, ‘Rennes Dindshenchas’ RC 15 (1894) 308. 28 As listed by Orpen (see below, note 53). There have been more recent assess- ments, notably by Eoin MacNeill, Early Irish laws and institutions (Dublin [1935]) 104-8, and by Máire MacNeill, The festival of Lughnasa (London 1962) 339-44. CARMAN:APROPOSED LOCATION 61 a king of Uí Fhailge over Laigin for the first time in recorded history. Perhaps that is why, in the account of Óenach Carmain in the Rennes Dindshenchas, the seat of the king of Osraige was placed on the right of the king of Carman, and that of the king of Uí Fhailge on his left.29 There are no further references in the annals to the holding of Óenach Carmain – not that one would expect the recording of a rou- tine triennial event Ð but there are incidental references to other óenaig, as for instance when Fáelán, king of Laigin, died in 942 as a result of a fall at Óenach Colmáin.30 With regard to Tailtiu, there are eleven references to its óenach to be found in AFM between 539 and 1168, and even if 1168 marked the final official event prior to the arrival of the Normans, games were still carried on there annually up to the beginning of the nineteenth century, according to John O’Donovan’s account31 Ð long after the name and fame of Carman had been forgotten.

3. LOCATION THEORIES

Lavish though the details of the Dindshenchas poem may be, there is one aspect in which it is sadly lacking, namely in its failure to tell us where exactly Carman was, or what other places were adjacent. A very few sparse clues are provided: that it was a burial-ground of kings (l. 9); that it had winding (or branchy) harbours (or stretches of water)32 Ð ó Charmun na cúan cróebach (l. 147); that it had hal- lowed water nearby Ð ós rath-lind Charmain co cáid (l. 275). But because the name itself did not survive even to the seventeenth cen- tury, the memory of Carman’s location was lost, and a problem cre- ated which a century and a half’s debate failed to resolve. The first attempt to identify the site appears to be that of Conell Mageoghagan (1627) who in translating the entry relating to Feidlimid mac Crimthainn in 838 (= AU s.a. 841) altered ‘Carman’ to ‘Logh Carman alias Weixford’.33 John O’Donovan, generally the pioneer in the identification of placenames, accepted this in 184734 and fre- quently glossed Carman as ‘Wexford’ in AFM.35 He was followed by 29 RC 15 (1894) 312 (= LL 25102-3). 30 AFM s.a. 940. 31 John O’Donovan, Ordnance Survey Letters, Meath, p. 4. 32 See DIL (s.v. ‘cúan’) which cites from IGT Decl. ex. 243: lán cairthi chúain na Suca ‘of the waters (?) of the (River) Suck’. 33 The Annals of Clonmacnoise, ed. Denis Murphy (Dublin 1896) 138. 34 O’Donovan, Leabhar na gCeart 15-6. 35 s.a. A.M. 3727, 3790, 4608; A.D. 840, 1079. 62 DIARMUID Ó MURCHADHA O’Curry (1857),36 Sullivan (1873)37 and Brash (1879).38 Hennessy (1866,39 187140) also accepted Wexford, but after re-examining the question in 1887, changed his mind and produced strong arguments to prove O’Donovan wrong, placing Carman first in south Kildare and later in Co. Carlow.41 Despite this, Wexford was again accepted by Stokes in 1894,42 by Meyer in 189943 and later still by Rhyˆs in 1909-10.44 (It has, in fact, been resurrected as recently as 1998 by MacKillop).45 The Carlow location seems to have had its origins in an article by J. F. Shearman (1874-5),46 who sited Carman in the parish of Ballon near Carlow, owing to the fact that in a Dind- shenchas poem the River Burren is said to be named from one Bairend Chermain.47 This theory fascinated Edmund Hogan to such 1 an extent that he devoted 3 ⁄2 columns of his Onomasticon Goedelicum (1910) first to completing the demolition of O’Donovan’s location, and then to supplying a profusion of reasons for siting Carman where the Burren joined the Barrow, near Carlow town. But practically all of these ‘proofs’ depended on accepting Cerman as a synonym for Carman, notwithstanding the fact that throughout the lines of the Dindshenchas poem on Carman, no con- nection is made with Bairend Chermain. Máire MacNeill (1962)48 also opted for Co. Carlow, because of the poem’s references to Berba and Uí Dróna. But these are only two out of the poem’s comprehen- sive list of Laigin places and peoples: Raigne, Dothra, Maistiu, Fid Gaible, Laigse, Fothairt, Clanna Condla / Osraige, Síl Rosa Fhailge, Argatros, Bregmag – and Uí Cheinnselaig may be included through Diarmait (?mac Maíl na mBó). She also suggested that Carman may have been at or near Dinn Ríg, but this equation depends on

36 Eugene O’Curry, On the manners and customs of the ancient Irish (3 vols, London 1873) II 38. 37 W. K. Sullivan, ibid. III, App. 3, p. 523. 38 R. R. Brash, The Ogam inscribed monuments of the Gaedhil (London 1879) 86. 39 PRIA 9 (1864-6) 350. 40 ALC I 34. 41 AU (1) I 345; i 567. 42 RC 15 (1894) 315. 43 RC 20 (1899) 11. 44 John Rhyˆs, ‘The Coligny calendar’ Proceedings of the British Academy (1909- 10) 222. 45 James MacKillop, Dictionary of Celtic mythology (Oxford 1998) 68. 46 ‘Loca Patriciana’ (no. 8), Jn. Roy. Hist. & Arch. Ass. Irel. 4th ser., vol. 3 (1874- 5) 403 n. 47 MD III 88-92. 48 MacNeill, Festival of Lughnasa 339-44. CARMAN:APROPOSED LOCATION 63 Keating,49 who confused the place where Láegaire Lorc was killed by Cobthach Cáel Breg (hi cath Charmuin, CGH 135 b 40) with that where Cobthach himself was slain (i nDind Ríg ós Berba, CGH 135 b 42). Hogan’s ‘substantial volume of evidence’ was found quite convincing by Smyth (1982),50 also by Radner (1978),51 but not by Gwynn (1913),52 who stressed the difference between Cermun and Carmun and could not see any evidence to associate Carman with the Carlow site. He adverted instead to the ‘masterly paper’ by Goddard H. Orpen (1906),53 a lengthy scrutiny of the original sources which for some reason was either overlooked or ignored by Hogan. The first section of Orpen’s nine-point conclusions is as follows:

The allusions in the Annals and the verses there quoted, and in the Book of Rights, show that we must look for Dun Carmain and the site of Aenach Carmain in the neighbourhood of the well-known residences, in historic times, of the Kings of North Leinster (Laighin tuath Gabhair), more specifically, to the dis- trict included between Naas, the Hill of Allen, Knockaulin, and the Liffey.

In view of the evidence adduced, it is difficult to fault this asser- tion; Gwynn accepted it to the extent of indexing Carman as ‘prob- ably in Kildare’.54 Earlier, Mac Carthy (1901)55 and Joyce (1903)56 had both opted for Co. Kildare. More recently, F. J. Byrne com- mented: ‘It [Carman] has not been identified, but was probably in the Liffey plain.’57 Gwynn did not, however, concur with Orpen’s more specific conclusion that Carman was synonymous with Ailenn / Cnoc Ailinne, a noted residence of the Laigin kings at Knockaulin, over- looking the Curragh of Kildare. Orpen devoted a great deal of atten- tion to the Curragh as a long-established course for horse-racing,

49 , The History of Ireland. Forus Feasa ar Éirinn, ed. David Comyn and P. S. Dinneen, ITS 4, 8, 9, 15 (4 vols, London 1902-13) II 160, 162. 50 A. P. Smyth, Celtic Leinster (Dublin 1982) 35. 51 J. N. Radner, FAI, index, p. 230. 52 MD III 470-1. 53 G. H. Orpen, ‘Aenach Carman: its site’ JRSAI 36 (1906) 11-41. 54 MD V 184 (index). 55 Bartholomew Mac Carthy, AU IV 48 (index). 56 P. W. Joyce, A social history of ancient Ireland (London 1903) II 441. 57 F. J. Byrne, Irish kings and high-kings (London 1973) 141. (Professor Byrne has, however, changed his opinion in this regard, and in the Additional Notes (p. xviii) to a recent reprint (2001) has opted for the Carlow site.) 64 DIARMUID Ó MURCHADHA and identified Óenach Life (AFM s.a. 954) with Óenach Carmain. Gwynn pointed out that the Curragh is a waterless region, which clashes with the references in the Dindshenchas poem to ‘rath-lind Charmain’ and ‘Carman na cúan cróebach’. Orpen also glossed over the separate naming of Carman and Ailenn in more than one text, e.g. in the lament for Cerball who was slain in 904.58 The arrangement of the Dindshenchas, whereby Almu, Ailenn and Carman are treated in succession, obviously points to their being in the same area, but again it has to be stressed that however fictitious the eponyms sup- plied for notable places, the very fact that separate poems commem- orate Carman and Ailenn must indicate that these were distinct sites.

4. PROPOSED LOCATION

It seems reasonably clear that ‘Carmun Liphi’, as it is termed in the Book of Leinster,59 was in what is now Co. Kildare, and the location I propose for it is in the parish of Carnalway. This parish is bounded on the south and west by the River Liffey, situated where the Liffey begins to change from a westerly to a northerly direction Ð just as in Co. Meath the townland of Teltown, site of Tailtiu, fills a SW angle of the Blackwater. It was undoubtedly regarded as part of Life / Mag Life. At the opposite side of the River Liffey, Kilcullen, referred to as Cella Cuilinn in the Tripartite Life, is named as one of the Patrician churches in Mag Liphi.60 It should be noted also that in an alternative derivation of the name Carman in Acallam na Senórach, Mag Life was assigned to its eponym (Carman i Carman nach mín … Mag Life ar lí an óir gun og-mhnai) (‘Carman in rugged Carman … golden-hued Mag Life [belongs] to the young woman’).61 There does not appear to have been a pre-Norman ecclesiastical site in Carnalway; the secular-type name indicates that it was probably a Norman manor-parish.62 But a certain import must have been attached to Carnalway as the parish name, just as in Co. Meath we find parishes named Tara, Teltown and Dowth after the famed ancient sites of Temair, Tailtiu, Dubad. The name does not occur in Irish texts, so that the original Irish form is debatable. The modern English form, which is recorded 58 FAI 164 (= AFM II 572). 59 LL 22474. 60 Bethu Phátraic, ed. Kathleen Mulchrone (Dublin 1939) ll 2192-4. 61 Stokes, ‘Acallamh’ ll 1274-6. 62 ‘The [Norman] manor and the parish are normally coincident’ (Jocelyn Otway- Ruthven, Historical Studies V (London 1965) 76). CARMAN:APROPOSED LOCATION 65 c. 1260 as Karnallway,63 suggests *Carn Ailmhuighe, but since carn in placenames usually denotes a burial cairn, one would expect a personal name to follow it, e.g. *Carn Ailbhe. It is noticeable that Moynalvey, Co. Meath (Magh nAilbhe, AFM s.a. 998) appears in the Calendar of justiciary rolls (1299) as ‘Monalewy’, while further on in the same volume Carnalway is written ‘Kernelewy’.64 While the spelling Carnalway is the usual one, a further indication that Ailbhe was the second element is to be found in the sixteenth-century Tudor fiants, where on five occasions between 1552 and 1592 the name is spelled ‘Carnalvey / Carnalvie / Kernalvye’,65 and only once, in 1598, as Carnalway.66 The personal name Ailbe / Ailbhe was borne by various legendary figures, both male and female,67 while two of the name are listed in the genealogy of Uí Maine Laigen.68 It so happens that a burial site of the kings of Laigin was known as Óenach Ailbe. It is named in a tract entitled Aided Nath ê 7 a adnacol inso,69 which is largely an account of Óenach Cruachan in , but concludes with a list of the chief pagan cemeteries of Ireland. This tract is also found in the (BB) and the (YBL), and the three versions were compared and assessed by Tomás Ó Concheanainn, whose verdict was that the texts of ‘Aided Nath Í’ in BB and YBL derive ultimately from LU.70 In this list Óenach Carmain is not found; the burial-place of the kings of Laigin (Rígrad cóicid Galiam) is given as Óenach Ailbe. BB follows LU, but YBL makes an addition: Rigrad didu coicid Gailian in Oenach Colman no Ailbi. These were probably separate sites. Óenach Colmáin may have been situated in the Curragh of Kildare, being associated with horse-racing: Fidgenid … fecit equum ligneum in Circio Colmáin hi lLiphu (Rawl. B 502); each crainn … a nÁenach Colmán a Maig Life (Lec.).71 (‘Fidgenid … made a wooden horse in the racecourse of Colmán in Life’; ‘a wooden horse in Óenach Colmáin in Mag 63 Calendar of Archbishop Alen’s register, ed. Charles McNeill (Dublin 1950) 125. 64 Calendar of Justiciary Rolls, Ireland I 246, 349. 65 Fiant Eliz. nos. 1131, 1216, 3863 (bis), 5761 (The Irish fiants of the Tudor sov- ereigns) (repr. Dublin 1994)). 66 ibid. no. 6239. 67 Donnchadh Ó Corráin and Fidelma Maguire, Gaelic personal names (Dublin 1981) 16-7. 68 CGH 124 b 45-6 (p. 74). 69 LU 2783-2907. 70 Tomás Ó Concheanainn, ‘“Aided Nath í” and the scribes of Leabhar na hUidhre’ Éigse 16 (1975) 146-162. 71 CGH 152 a 11. 66 DIARMUID Ó MURCHADHA Life’). Because it was in Mag Life, it was sometimes referred to as Óenach Life,72 but its exact site has never been identified. Similarly, no one has located Óenach Ailbe; it does not necessar- ily have to be associated, as Orpen suggested,73 with Mag nAilbe, the plain reaching from bar. Idrone, Co. Carlow, to bar. Kilkea and Moone, Co. Kildare, since Ailbe is of fairly frequent occurrence in placenames. (Three separate places are named Magh nAilbhe in AFM.)74 A text in LU entitled Senchas na Relec contains a listing similar in many ways to that in ‘Aided Nath Í’, as follows: Roptar íat so trá prímreilce Herend ría cretim (‘these were the chief pre- Christian cemeteries in Ireland’) .i. Crúachu. in Brug. in Talltiu. Lúacair Ailbe. Óenach Ailbe. Óenach Cúli. Óenach Colman. Temair Erand.75 It will be noticed that Ó. Ailbe and Ó. Colmáin are listed separately. Further on the text specifies: Lagin i nÓenuch Albi,76 with a marginal note (by M): .i. Cataír cona chlaind 7 na rig rempo (‘Cathaír with his family and the kings before them’). In the LL Dindshenchas, the prose introduction to the poem on Carman fea- tures a similar list:

Uii primreilge Herend ut reilge Relec Talten ria toga. Relec Cruachna aire. 7 Relec in Broga. Relec Carmuin Chuiredaig. Oenach Cuile co cintaib. 7 martra muntire is Oenach Duni Fintain.77

The aforementioned seven chief cemeteries of Ireland, the cemetery of Tailtiu before choice (?); the cemetery of Cruachu before it; and the cemetery of In Brug; the cemetery of hos- pitable Carman; the assembly-place of Cúl with dues (?); and the burial-place of the community and the assembly-place of Dún Fintain.

One of the significant differences between the two lists is the omis- sion of Óenach Ailbe in LL and its replacement by Relec Carmuin Chuiredaig. This indicates that Óenach Ailbe and Óenach Carmain

72 Oenach Life cona lí, LL 29090; iar naighe aonaigh Life, AFM s.a. 954. 73 Orpen, ‘Aenach Carman’ 25. 74 AFM VII 85 (index). 75 LU 4068-70. 76 ibid. 4111. 77 LL 25091-3 CARMAN:APROPOSED LOCATION 67 related to the same site.78 I am not aware of any text in which the names are listed separately. This brings us back to Carnalway and its proposed Irish form, *Carn Ailbhe. As óenach and carn are both applicable to a burial mound, it could happen that the two elements were interchangeable, and that the ancient Óenach Ailbe became the modern *Carn Ailbhe / Carnalway.79 The location of Carnalway is suitable in that it is in a direct line between Naas (Nás) and Knockaulin (Ailenn / Cnoc Ailinne), both well-known royal residences of the Laigin. It is also about two miles upstream from Athgarvan (Áth Garbáin),80 which was probably where Slige Dála, the ancient road to north Munster, crossed the Liffey.81 Accessibility must have been an important con- sideration in the choosing of an assembly site, and Carnalway’s cen- tral position meant that all parts of the Laigin territories lay within a reasonable distance. Thus far, the aim of my arguments has been to show the likelihood of Carnalway having been a site for Óenach Carmain, without pro- viding any real proof in this regard. There is, however, one item of toponymic evidence which contributes to the establishment of the equation. It occurs in an official document assigning the dower of Anastasia (de Stanton), widow of David Coffey of Rathcoffey (and remarried to John Bellewe), dated 24 February 1417.82 While the Wogan lands lay mainly around Rathcoffey in north Kildare, David Wogan was also entitled to rents from John Eustace’s manor of ‘Carnalin’ (sic) and from many of the smallholdings specified within it. Among these were the townlands of Carnalway (Carnalwey), Logstown (Balylog / Ballylug) and Harristown (‘Mote de Henrys- town’ Ð which may indicate the site of a burial mound). It contains many other names which have now disappeared, such as

78 Having made this equation, I found that I was not the first to do so: Richard Brash did likewise in 1879 Ð and for the same reason (The Ogam inscribed monu- ments of the Gaedhil 76). See also Máire MacNeill (Festival of Lughnasa 340): ‘Possibly Oenach Carmain may have been the same as Oenach n-Ailbhe.’ 79 Cerball of Carman (see above) is referred to in another poem by Dallán mac Móre as ‘Cerball in Chairn’, LL 6704 (= RC 29 (1908) 211, where Meyer translates as ‘Cerball of Carnsore’). 80 See Kathleen Mulchrone, The Book of Lecan, Facsimile (Dublin 1937) 124rb2. 81 ‘Carmun Liphi’ features in the Prose Dindshenchas of Slige Dála (LL 22474). See also ‘magnam viam que tendit ab ampne de Anneliffi ad Korrah nomine Adgaruan’ (Register of the Abbey of St Thomas, Dublin, ed. J. T. Gilbert (London 1889) 334). 82 Rotulorum patentium et clausorum cancellariae Hiberniae calendarium, ed. Edward Tresham (London 1828) 222. 68 DIARMUID Ó MURCHADHA Loghspenlagh and Loghencaryke which took their names from lakes no longer in existence; one of them may have given rise to the phrase os rath-lind Charmain. The most significant item for the purposes of this article is the following: ‘item 20a. terre in Carmaneshyll’ ex parte boreale’ (‘likewise 20 acres of land in the northern part of Carmaneshyll’). I take this to be an old spelling of ‘Carman’s hill’.83 The reference is unique – I have not come across the name ‘Carman’ in any other official document Ð and cannot be disregarded in any discussion of the site of Óenach Carmain. From its position on the list, while one cannot be absolutely cer- tain as to the location of ‘Carmanshyll’’, the indications are that it lay in Carnalway parish. The two preceding entries are: ‘Balylog, terra vastata, 2 a. juxta pontem; item 4 a. juxta le Londmeris ibidem’ (‘Balylog, land laid waste, 2 acres near the bridge; likewise 4 acres near the Londmeris in the same area’). Balylog, now Logstown, is in Carnalway parish, near Kilcullenbridge, but the name ‘le Londmeris’ has disappeared. It is most likely that the following ‘Carmaneshyll’ ex parte boreale’ concludes the lands of Carnalway parish, since the list then moves to ‘third parts’ allotted to Anastasia Ð a third part of the woods of Rathcoffy, Jakesgrag’ and Fernan, a third of the park and orchard of Courtoun, a third of about fifteen woods and other areas, mainly in the Rathcoffey / Clongowes area. While *Carn Ailbe originally just designated a cairn, the name Carnalway was that of a parish from the thirteenth century,84 and also of a townland within it. There is no trace of a cairn in the modern townland of Carnalway, but as boundaries frequently change85 it may perhaps be found in one of the adjoining townlands. There is no scarcity of ancient sites in Carnalway parish, as shown by the archaeological record of Co. Kildare, published in 1995:86 a ringfort in Logstown, two enclosures and a possible tumulus in Kilcullenbridge, two deserted settlement sites in Harristown, poten- tial sites in Walterstown and Dunstown. An intriguing one in the townland of Brownstown is noted as ‘cemetery site’. It appears on

83 Aonach in often denoted a hill or height, and this usage is sometimes found in Ireland, according to Tomás Ó Concheanainn, Dinnseanchas 2 (1966) 15-6. 84 See ‘Walter, vicar of the church of Carnelwy’, s.a. 1298 (Calendar of Justiciary Rolls, Ireland I 195). 85 Note that while there are twelve townlands today, in the mid-seventeenth century only six are recorded (The Civil Survey, A.D. 1654-1656 vol. VIII: County of Kildare, ed. R. C. Simington (Dublin 1952) 52-3). 86 Record of monuments and places, Co. Kildare (OPW 1995) OS 6-inch maps nos. 23, 24, 28, 29. CARMAN:APROPOSED LOCATION 69 the 1933 6-inch OS map (Kildare 23) as ‘Mellon Hill’, which seems to be the place called ‘Maiden Hill’ by a near resident, William McGrath, in 1833, and described by John O’Donovan as follows:

An embankment or Double Ditch appears to have been part of the rim of an old mound or fort, but there is no other appear- ance of it.87

This may be connected with the curvilinear feature ‘on the side of a gently rising hill’ (in Brownstown), partly excavated in 1998 to reveal a V-shaped ditch, ‘suggesting that it is part of a larger circular enclosure’. This excavation resulted from the archaeological moni- toring of topsoil removal prior to the development of a sand and gravel quarry. The site is where three townlands meet, and in the other two, namely Corbally (in Kildare parish) and Silliothill, sev- eral interesting archaeological features were revealed. These included eight charcoal-flecked pits forming a subcircular plan, one of them containing fragments of burnt bone and shreds of prehistoric pottery, possibly of Bronze Age date. Additionally, in Corbally the foundations of three Neolithic houses dating from c. 4000 B.C. were excavated.88 Silliothill lies north of Brownstown and west of Carnalway (town- land). It boasts the only real hill in the parish, 498 feet above sea level. While such a height would hardly be noticed in a hilly area, here it affords an extensive view over the surrounding Mag Life. The archaeological record of Co. Kildare refers to a site on its hilltop as ‘barrow possible’ (i.e. a burial mound). This could well have been part Ð perhaps the main part Ð of the Carman complex, but only exca- vation could provide more definite evidence. Silliothill is a very old name;89 in 1302 ‘Selyot and Kernelewy’ are linked in a request by William Alexandre (which was not granted) to be allowed to donate 80 acres there to the Hospital of St John Baptist.90 But the name is apparently of Anglo-Norman origin and probably replaced a previ- ous Gaelic name. It may be of significance that Silliothill does not appear in the 1417 list, but Carmaneshyll does Ð perhaps the earlier

87 Ordnance Survey name books, Co. Kildare (NLI microfilm no. 3464). 88 Summary accounts by Avril Purcell in Isabel Bennett ed., Excavations 1997, 91, and Excavations 1998, 103-4. 89 There is a second tl. Silliothill approx. 12 miles to the west, near Kildare. 90 Calendar of Justiciary Rolls, Ireland I, 439. 70 CARMAN:APROPOSED LOCATION name for the hill. My conclusion is that here, on or around Silliothill in the parish of Carnalway, Óenach Carmain was celebrated.91

ABBREVIATIONS

AFM Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters, ed. John O’Donovan (7 vols, Dublin 1856; repr. Dublin 1990) ALC The Annals of Loch Cé, ed. W. M. Hennessy (2 vols, London 1871) AU The Annals of Ulster (to A.D. 1131) I, ed. Seán Mac Airt and Gearóid Mac Niocaill (Dublin 1951) AU (1) Annals of Ulster, ed. W. M. Hennessy and Bartholomew Mac Carthy (4 vols, Dublin 1887-1901) CGH Corpus Genealogiarum Hiberniae, vol. 1, ed. M. A. O’Brien (Dublin 1962) CS Chronicum Scotorum, ed. W. M. Hennessy (London 1866) FAI Fragmentary Annals of Ireland, ed. J. N. Radner (Dublin 1978) LL The Book of Leinster, ed. R. I. Best, Osborn Bergin, M. A. O’Brien and Anne O’Sullivan (6 vols, Dublin 1954-83) LU Lebor na hUidre, ed. R. I. Best and Osborn Bergin (Dublin 1929) MD The Metrical Dindshenchas, ed. Edward Gwynn (5 vols, Dublin 1903- 35)

DIARMUID Ó MURCHADHA Bun an Tábhairne, Co. Chorcaí

91 I am grateful to Professors Tomás Ó Con Cheanainn and Pádraig Ó Riain and to Dr Kevin Murray, who advised on my first draft; also Dónall Mac Giolla Easpaig for providing lists of townland names, Conleth Manning of Dúchas and Dr Margaret Gowen for archaeological information, Dr Carole Hough of Glasgow University for advice on the name Silliothill, and Brian Byrne of Kilcullen for local information. EARLY IRISH CÉIR ‘BEE’S WAX’

EARLY Irish céir ‘bee’s wax’ has long been considered a loan from Latin ce¯ra.1 It has been noted, however, that ‘it is the only Latin loan among the Old Irish words connected with bee keeping.’2 As bee’s wax was essential for making the candles used in Christian worship, and as the Old Irish word for candle, caindel, is also a borrowing from Latin (candela),3 this particular loan could, of course, be justi- fied. However, wax is not solely associated with candle production;4 it is also notable that this word ‘surprisingly, … is not mentioned in Irish legal material, though it must have been an essential substance in every monastery.’5 As the nomenclature of Early Irish bee-keep- ing terms includes at least one early Brittonic loan-word, it seems worthwhile to consider the British evidence here. The Old Irish term lestar ‘bee hive’ is normally viewed as a bor- rowing from Brittonic; cf. Welsh llestr, Breton lestr, Cornish lester.6 The importance of this loanword is that it points to certain chrono- logical boundaries. As Thomas Charles-Edwards and Fergus Kelly note, it ‘must have entered the Irish language around the 5th-6th cen- turies A.D. (If it were an earlier borrowing the expected form would be *lessar, cf. Latin castellum > Caissel).’7 The word for ‘bee’s wax’ in the Brittonic languages is also a borrowing from Latin; cf. Welsh cwyr, Old Breton and Old Cornish coir. In the fifth-/sixth- century

1 Joseph Vendryes, De hibernicis vocabulis quae a latina lingua originem duxerunt (Paris 1902), 123; Joseph Vendryes, Lexique étymologique de l’irlandais ancien. Lettre C (Paris and Dublin 1987), C-56; cf. D. E. Le Sage, Honey: a comprehensive survey (London 1975) 433. 2 Thomas Charles-Edwards and Fergus Kelly, Bechbretha (Dublin 1983) 42. 3 ibid. 4 For various uses of beeswax in a thirteenth-century English monastery see Frank G. Vernon, ‘Beekeeping in 1269-1270 at Beaulieu Abbey in England’ Bee World 60 (1979) 172-173. For beeswax in Welsh tradition, see Elisabeth Crane and P. Walker, ‘Evidence on Welsh Beekeeping in the Past’ Folk Life 23 (1984-5) 40-41; cf. also Elisabeth Crane, The archaeology of beekeeping (London 1983) 240-6. 5 Fergus Kelly, Early Irish farming (Dublin 1997) 114. 6 The usual claim that this word ‘in Welsh is always in a compound with gwenyn “bee”: gwenynllestr’ could be justified only for the Middle Welsh period, as the sim- plex llestr is attested in this meaning since 1561 (in Hafod MS 8), see Stephen J. Williams, ‘Traethawd Gwallter o Henlai ar Hwsmonaeth’ Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 4 (1931) 49; T. H. Parry-Williams in Rhyddiaith Gymraeg: Y gyfrol gyntaf (Caerdydd 1954) 59-60. 7 Charles-Edwards and Kelly, Bechbretha 42. 72 ALEXANDER FALILEYEV language, before diphthongization of the long e,8 the corresponding form must have been *ke¯r- or the like. One might suggest therefore that the source of this particular loan-word in Irish could also be traced to Britain. There are two basic methods of assigning the loans in Irish to Latin or British Latin: (1) the examination of the phonology of indi- vidual words, and (2) socio-linguistic observations. These have been thoroughly discussed by Damian McManus, who has stressed the importance of the former and aptly claims that the latter could be highly speculative.9 The word in question does not allow application of the first method, as it does not contain distinctive features that would be relevant for this procedure. The socio-linguistic context, on the contrary, makes this assumption quite likely, as it is not the only bee-keeping term that has been borrowed from the British.10 As far as the sound change is concerned, there are no formal obstacles to considering that an indirect Latin borrowing could result in Irish céir ‘bee’s wax’; cf. Irish reiclés < W. egle¯s.11 There is a cer- tain morphological problem, however. The Irish word alongside the Latin form is feminine, while the Welsh is masculine. Moreover, in the other Brittonic languages the word is also masculine, so the mas- culine proto-form should be posited for Brittonic; cf. in this respect Joseph Loth’s suggestion that the Brittonic word for ‘bee’s wax’ goes back to *ce¯rus, and not ce¯ra.12 This suggestion was critically evalu- ated by E. Campanile, for example, who noted that the masculine form of the Latin noun is not attested;13 there is no available expla- nation of gender change in the course of transmission of the Latin noun into Brittonic. This, of course, cannot but call into question the suggested indirect borrowing into Irish. However, several points can be raised here in support of this theory.

8 According to H. Jackson, Language and history in early Britain (Edinburgh 1953), 333-5, this development occurred in the sixth century. 9 Damian McManus, The Latin loan-words in Irish, unpublished PhD thesis (Trinity College Dublin 1982) 158f. 10 For similar cases see J. P. Wild, ‘Borrowed names for borrowed things?’ Antiquity 57 (1970), and idem, ‘Loan-words and Roman expansion in north-west Europe’ World Archaeology 8 (1976). 11 Damian McManus, ‘A chronology of the Latin loan-words in early Irish’ Ériu 34 (1983) 59 (n. 112). 12 Joseph Loth, Les mots dans les langues brittoniques (Paris 1892) 155. 13 Enrico Campanile, Profilo etimologico del cornico antico (Pacini-Pisa 1974) 28; cf. Walter von Wartburg, Französisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (Leipzig & Berlin 1940), Band 2, 595-6, for the Romance data. EARLY IRISH CÉIR ‘BEE’S WAX’73 First of all, there is no positive evidence that the word was mas- culine in British Latin – and the source for the Irish word should be looked for in British Latin rather than in the vernacular British tongue. Second, it should be observed that there is a certain gender fluctuation that is well attested for several nouns in the neo-Brittonic languages. For example, in the Old Welsh (early ninth-century) text known as ‘“Surexit”-Memorandum’ the word tir ‘land’ is referred to by the 3 sg. feminine form of the prepositional pronoun amtanndi (Mod.W. amdani),14 although in the later attested contexts it is nor- mally masculine. Dafydd Jenkins and Morfydd E. Owen have sug- gested that the scribe of this text was either ‘thinking of an unexpressed feminine antecedent, e.g. hawl (i.e. the dispute was about the claim rather than the land)’, or alternatively that perhaps this is the oldest example of a feminine representing a neuter cate- gory, as in a modern Welsh expression such as Dyna’r gwir amdani ‘That’s the truth of it’.15 The word tir, originally neuter, is masculine in later Welsh, and could be both masculine and feminine in Irish. It is quite possible, therefore, that in its earliest attestation the word tir was in fact feminine; it has been noted that ‘all Keltic dialects are undergoing a diminution of their feminine nouns’.16 Could this not be the case with the word for ‘bee’s wax’ in the Brittonic languages also? The discrepancy between Goidelic and Brittonic as far as the gender assignment is concerned is not solely based on the redistrib- ution of the old neuters. To use another example from the bee-keep- ing terminology, contrast the masculine form of the word for ‘swarm’ in Breton, hed, and Irish saithe, with feminine Welsh haidd.17 Finally, the history of linguistic borrowings from Brittonic into Goidelic sometimes offers quite unexpected changes in the gender of borrowed words. One may recall, for example, the disputes concern- ing the transmission of the Latin word for ‘gold’ into Irish via British (Latin). Both Latin aurum and Irish ór are neuter words, while the

14 See J. Gwenogvryn Evans and John Rhyˆs, The text of the Book of Llan Dâv (Oxford 1893) xliii-xliv. 15 Dafydd Jenkins and Morfydd E. Owen, ‘The Welsh marginalia in the Lichfield Gospels. Part II: The “Surexit” Memorandum’, Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies 7 (1984) 99. 16 Fowkes, ‘Gender redistribution in Keltic – a preliminary study’ Studies presented to Joshua Whatmough on his sixtieth birthday, ed. Ernst Pulgram (s’Gravenhage 1957) 43. 17 Calvert Watkins, ‘Old Irish saithe, Welsh haid: etymology and metaphor’ Études Celtiques 16 (1979) 192 derives these terms from apparently masculine proto-form *sHtios. 74 EARLY IRISH CÉIR ‘BEE’S WAX’ Brittonic proto-form (to judge from Welsh aur etc.) must be mascu- line. It has been suggested by Robert Fowkes that ‘it is not incon- ceivable that the Latin loanwords had lost their neuter gender in Brythonic, becoming masculine or feminine, and their subsequent re-assignment to the neuter gender in Irish may well have been the result of other factors, such as partial paradigmatic resemblance to Irish neuters’.18 According to an entry in Félire Óengusso, an early seventh-cen- tury saint Mo Domnóc brought a swarm of honey-bees from Britain and thus introduced bee keeping in Ireland. Scholars maintain that ‘the nature of Irish bee-law might also be taken as evidence that the honeybee was introduced as late as the 5th or 6th century.’19 This date correlates with the linguistically determined period of the bor- rowing of the word for ‘bee hive’ (see above), and it is likely that the word for ‘bee’s wax’ was borrowed in the same epoch from British Latin.

ALEXANDER FALILEYEV Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies

18 Fowkes, art. cit. 39. 19 Charles-Edwards and Kelly, Bechbretha 40. The ultimately Indo-European ori- gins of Irish words for ‘bee’, ‘honey’ and ‘mead’ do not, of course, guarantee an early date for the introduction of bee-keeping into Ireland. A NEW OLD IRISH GLOSS IN A MUNICH MANUSCRIPT

THE MUNICH manuscript, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 14429, from the library of St Emmeram in Regensburg, Bavaria, is one of three Munich manuscripts which were written, in whole or in part, by an Irish scholar on the continent around the middle of the ninth century, or slightly thereafter.1 Less well known than the other group of ninth-century Irish manuscripts at Karlsruhe (Codd. Aug. CXXII, CLXVII, and CXCV), the famous Reichenau codices of Bede, Priscian, and Augustine with Old Irish glosses,2 the Munich codex Clm 14429 has nevertheless been studied for its important copy of the so-called Glossarium Salomonis (fols 2r-214v),3 which makes up the bulk of the manuscript and is itself a tour de force of Irish penmanship. The first eighty folios of the Glossarium were palimpsested from an Irish sacramentary (saec. VII), important for its evidence for Irish liturgi- cal practices in the seventh century, but also because its decorated initial letters are remarkably similar to those in the Cathach of Colum Cille (MS s.n., Royal Irish Academy).4 The collection also includes excerpts from ’s Liber de interpretationibus Hebraeicorum nominum (fols 1v-2v), and from the same author’s Hebraicae questiones in libro Geneseos (fols 214v-220v); notes and verses on the Muses (fol. 214v); Jerome’s Explanatio fidei (fols 221r-v); excerpts from Fulgentius’s Expositio antiquorum ser- monum; a text on the composition and use of litterae formatae with a Greek alpha-numerical alphabet, followed by a brief list of the XII abussiua seculi (fol. 226v); Jerome’s Sententia de utilitate grammat- icae artis,various related bits-and-pieces on the subject of Latin grammar and grammarians, plus a number of short Latin glossaries

1 The connection between the three manuscripts was first pointed out by Bernhard Bischoff, Die südostdeutschen Schreibschulen und Bibliotheken in der Karolingerzeit I (Wiesbaden 1960) 243-4, with additional notes and corrections, ibid. II (Wiesbaden 1980) 242-3; cf. Carl Halm et al., Catalogus codicum manuscripto- rum monachensium 4/2 (München 1876) 171. 2 See Bernhard Bischoff, ‘Irische Schreiber im Karolingerreich’, in Jean Scot Érigène et l’histoire de la philosophie Actes des Colloques Internationaux du CNRS, Laon 1975 (Paris 1977) 47-58, repr. in Bischoff, Mittelalterliche Studien: Ausgewählte Aufätze zur Schriftkunde und zur Literaturgschichte (3 vols Stuttgart 1966-1981) III 39-54. A Reichenau connection for the three Munich manuscripts was also demonstrated by Bischoff, Schreibschulen I 243-44. 3 See J. P. McGeachy, ‘The Glossarium Salomonis and its relationship to the Liber Glossarum’ Speculum 13/3 (1938) 309-18. 4 See Alban Dold and Leo Eizenhöfer, Das irische Palimpsestkommentar im Clm 14429 der Staatsbibliothek München (Beuron 1964). 76 A NEW OLD IRISH GLOSS IN A MUNICH MANUSCRIPT written by several carolingian scribes under the supervision of the Irish master.5 The Munich catalogue (1876) drew attention to the fact that these brief glossaries contained glosses in Old High German, which were subsequently published by Steinmeyer and Sievers.6 Five Old Irish glosses were published for the first time by Zimmer, and subse- quently by Stokes and Strachan.7 Among the glosses published by Steinmeyer and Sievers, however, was one which they wrongly iden- tified as Old High German: serum caseuazzar id est medc (fol. 225va 6) Steinmeyer and Sievers printed the last word as medo, but the man- uscript is quite clear at this point, and the spelling given above is the correct one. The same gloss, serum .i. medhg, is attested (albeit from a later source, c. 1100) in the tract on Latin declension published by Stokes.8 That the German editors may have had some doubts about the correctness of their interpretation is perhaps suggested by a foot- noted reference to the fact that this gloss was entered by the main hand which usually wrote the Latin glosses (‘von der hand, die sonst lat. gll. nachtrug’, p. 176 n. 1), whereas the OHG glosses were usu- ally entered by a quite different (and later) hand. As compensation for the ‘loss’ of this gloss I might point out that another German (Old Saxon) gloss in the same manuscript appears to have escaped the notice of German scholars: fol. 228ra, in a list of words with the heading DE OBSCURêS SIGNêS, the following is found: [bi]bliopola9 [.i.] librorum uenditor. buco10 DÁIBHÍ Ó CRÓINÍN National University of Ireland, 5 I hope to publish a full-length study of this manuscript and its two sister manu- scripts on another occasion. 6 Elias Steinmeyer and Eduard Sievers, Die althochdeutschen Glossen IV (Berlin 1898) 175-76 (excerpts only from the glossary). 7 Heinrich Zimmer, ‘Altirische Glossen im codex latinus Monacensis 14429’ Zeits. f. Vergl. Sprachforschung 33 (1893) 274-84; Whitley Stokes and John Strachan, Thesaurus Palaeohibernicus: a collection of Old Irish glosses, scholia, prose and verse (2 vols, Cambridge 1901-03) 2, 3. 8 Whitley Stokes, Irish glossaries (Dublin 1860) 3-35. I am grateful to Dr Anthony Harvey, Dictionary of Medieval Latin from Celtic Sources, Royal Irish Academy, for this reference. 9 The first letters of every word on this page are obscured by a binding strip, but the restoration is fairly certain nonetheless. 10 I wish to thank Professor Hans-Ulrich Schmid, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, München, for his expert advice on this German gloss. The research on which this publication is based was made possible by a generous fellowship-grant from the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung, Bonn. A SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH Uê DHOMHNAILL

1. INTRODUCTION

LUGHAIDH Ó CLÉIRIGH is known to have composed his account of the life of Aodh Ruadh Ó Domhnaill (†1602) some time between the death of Aodh Ó Néill, Earl of Tyrone, at Rome in 1616 and the com- pletion of the Annals of the Four Masters in 1636. The earlier date is deduced from the fact that the author at the conclusion of the Life recalls the passing of many of the noblest of Ó Domhnaill’s contem- poraries ‘in other countries one after another’, and this is usually taken to refer to Tyrone among others.1 The later date mentioned comes from the acknowledgement by the compilers of the Annals in their preface that one of two principal sources used for their account of the Nine Years’War was the ‘Book of Lughaidh Ó Cléirigh 1586- 1602’.2 It is worth calling to mind that were it not for their testimony on this point the identity of the author of the text which we now com- monly refer to as Beatha Aodha Ruaidh Uí Dhomhnaill, the ‘Life of Aodh Ruadh Ó Domhnaill’, would remain unknown, since the only independent copy still extant (RIA MS no. 138 (23 P 24), 17th cent.) is both untitled and without attribution.3 The scribe also writes anonymously, but it is generally agreed that the hand of the manu- script is that of Cú Choigcríche (son of ) Ó Cléirigh, one of the Four Masters, whose hand occurs in several other manuscripts.4 Cú Choigcríche’s stature as an accomplished and industrious scholar of the seventeenth century (he lived on until some time after 1664) has recently been enhanced by the recognition that he executed important redactions of metrical texts,5 and seems likely also to have been responsible for the adaptation and incorporation of the contents of Beatha Aodha Ruaidh Uí Dhomhnaill in the Annals.6

1 Beatha Aodha Ruaidh Uí Dhomhnaill, ed. Paul Walsh (2 vols, Dublin 1948-57) II 16-18. 2 The Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters, ed. John O’Donovan (7 vols, Dublin 1848-51) I p. lxvi-lxvii. 3 See Catalogue of Irish manuscripts in the Royal Irish Academy 396-97. 4 Paul Walsh, ‘The O Clerys of Tirconnell’ Studies 24 (1935) 244-62 (at pp 259- 61); idem, Beatha Aodha Ruaidh Uí Dhomhnaill II 15-16. 5 See P. A. Breatnach, ‘The methodology of seanchas’ Éigse 29 (1996) 1-18. 6 The evidence for this was presented by the writer to an audience at University College Cork in November 2001 in a paper entitled ‘Irish records of the Nine Years’ War’ (publication forthcoming). 78 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH The remarkable fact that only one independent copy of Ó Cléirigh’s Life of Aodh Ruadh is transmitted led the editor of the text, Paul Walsh, to speculate as to why such a long and important work failed to attract copyists. He dismissed the possibility that the author’s ‘repulsive’ prose style acted as a deterrent, and concluded instead in favour of accidental causes.

The ‘Life of Aodh Ruadh O Domhnaill,’ almost alone of the longer works written in the modern Irish period, was never copied or disseminated among the scribes. Treatises in that lan- guage that have not been copied at some time or other are exceptional, and some of the religious books especially must have enjoyed a greater popularity in manuscript than in printed form. Ó Cléirigh’s want of admirers may have been due to some accident Ð such as jealousy on the part of the owners of the manuscript Ð for extensive pieces quite as repulsive, so far as difficulty of vocabulary and style are concerned, were con- stantly reproduced by scribes of the eighteenth century. An instance of this is MacFirbishigh’s genealogical works, the Irish of which is frequently very uninviting.7

The discovery documented below of a hitherto unknown abridge- ment of Beatha Aodha Ruaidh Uí Dhomhnaill in an eighteenth- century manuscript in the collection of the National Library of Ireland (G 488) could hardly be said to undermine Walsh’s con- tention regarding the nugatory influence on literary culture of the original on which it is based. But it does offer, nonetheless, a salu- tary caution against making final judgements while so much of Irish manuscript literature remains unedited.

2. THE MANUSCRIPT

G 488 is a quarto paper volume bound in calf with the armorial of the 6th Earl of Drogheda embossed on the front and back covers, show- ing that it belonged in the mid-eighteenth century to the library of Lord Drogheda of Moore Abbey, Co. Kildare.8 Drogheda is known to have acquired a number of Irish manuscripts at the sale of the library of John Fergus M.D. in 1766, but we have no evidence to suggest that

7 Walsh, Beatha Aodha Ruaidh Uí Dhomhnaill II 19. 8 Nessa Ní Shéaghdha, Catalogue of Irish manuscripts in the National Library of Ireland Fasc. 10 (Dublin 1987) 99. ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 79 the present volume formed part of that acquisition.9 All that is known besides of the history of the volume, prior to its purchase by the National Library,10 is that it passed through the hands of John O’Donovan (1809-61). This is evident from the occurrence here and there of some occasional pencilled headings and explanation of con- tents in that scholar’s English hand,11 in addition to the following note in the same hand which precedes the copy of the topographical poem by Seaán Ó Dubhagáin, Triallum timcheall na Fódla, at p. 72:

The following poem No. 10 was compared with a copy of the same in the hand of Peregrine O Clery, one of the Four Masters by John O’Donovan August 4th 1832.12

Quite a number of interlinear corrections were entered by O’Donovan in his Irish hand in this copy of the poem. The copy to which the note refers made by Cú Choigcríche [‘Peregrine’] Ó Cléirigh survives in RIA MS no. 137 (23 N 28). This copy O’Donovan used in turn as the basis for his edition of Triallum tim- cheall na Fódla, posthumously published in 1862.13 But no reference occurs in that work to the present manuscript, and I have not traced any mention of it in O’Donovan’s other published writings. The paper seems uniform throughout, and the writing is by two anonymous eighteenth-century scribes. The contents of the volume fall into three sections, as indicated in the caption of the cataloguer, viz. ‘Grammar; Verse; Annals’.14 The first section (a) (pp 1-9, mod- ern pagination) is written in a large neat upright hand. This contains a copy of the popular short primer with instructions for reading and writing the Irish language entitled ‘Mionghramer le na gcuidithear

9 The record of the sale is preserved in RIA MS no. 1260 (24 E 7); cf. Pádraig Ó Macháin, Catalogue of Irish manuscripts in the National Library of Ireland Fasc. 11 (Dublin 1990) 9. 10 The acquisition of the manuscript by the National Library is documented in a printed slip from a sale-catalogue which is pasted to the front flyleaf, with the words ‘Bought by Maggs at Hodgson’s for £10 10s. March 1946’ inscribed in ink on the outer margin. 11 These entries seem possibly intended for the information of an owner or prospec- tive purchaser. 12 Cf. Ní Shéaghdha, Catalogue 100. 13 The topographical poems of John O’Dubhagain and Giolla na naomh O’Huidhrin, ed. John O’Donovan (Dublin 1862). Cf. Topographical poems by Seaán Mór Ó Dubhagáin and Giolla-na-Naomh Ó Huidhrín, ed. James Carney (Dublin 1943) p. vii. 14 Ní Séaghdha, Catalogue 99. 80 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH leis an aoís óg theacht chum Gaoidheilge do leughadh agus do sgriobhadh.’15 Marginal comments in Irish by O’Donovan occur at pp 4, 6.16 The roman numeral ‘I’ is inscribed in what appears to be the original ink above the title of this item; three blank leaves follow the end of the text. The second section (b) (pp 13-244; scribal pagin- ation ‘1-132’) is written by a different scribe in a neat but smaller hand having a slight tendency to lean towards the right. It includes a series of eleven poems on seanchas subjects, numbered in roman II- XII (pp 13-112);17 these are followed by a copy of the Contention of the Bards, headed ‘An Iomarbháid idir Leath Cuinn agus Leath Modha’. (Yellowing of the opening page of the Contention (p. 113) indicates exposure prior to binding, notwithstanding continuous scribal pagination.) The final section (c) (pp 253-304, scribal ‘1-52’) is written, as I believe, in the same large upright hand that wrote sec- tion (a).18 As this is the portion of the manuscript in which the item which is the subject of the present study is found, a fuller account of its contents may be supplied.

Contents of G 488, section (c) We can distinguish three subsections as follows. (1) Headed ‘Anail ar chuid dona cathaibh oirder[ca] do cuiriod a Leith Cuinn etc.’ (pp 253-260 / ‘1-8’), begins 555 Cath Cuile dreimne etc., ends Maille re pinnsi mhór et gradam o rígh na Spáinne. A digest of annalistic records of battles and other material, mostly related to the O’Donnells and arranged in chronological order (dates in margin), but with some obvious misplacement and / or merging of items, apparently owing to miscopying.19 In format and concept this is similar to a digest entitled ‘Oiris oirdhearca Tire Conaill’ which is found in several manuscripts and was edited by Paul Walsh under the title ‘Short annals of Tír Conaill’ (Beatha Aodha Ruaidh Uí 15 Tract derived from the widely disseminated Irish Grammar composed at Louvain in 1669; for other copies see Robin Flower, Catalogue of Irish manuscripts in the British Museum II (London 1926) 180, 365; Cat. of Irish MSS in the RIA nos. 27, 404. 16 See further below n. 35. 17 Pace Ní Shéaghdha, Catalogue 99 (‘twelve poems numbered [i]-xii’). 18 A contrary opinion is expressed by the cataloguer who views this as a third hand different from those preceding (ibid.). 19 Items recorded are in the following sequence ([ ] indicates absent date in the manuscript, / indicates merging of items): 555, 591, 633, 681/[1038], 701, 1106, 1181, 1197, 1207, 1247, 1281 [recte 1241], 1257, 1260, 1281(a), 1281(b) [recte 1241], 1618, [1603], [?], 1434/1499(a), 1499(b), 1471, [1608], 1629(a), 1629(b), 1633/1480, 1646. ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 81 Dhomhnaill II 86-97). However, there is little convergence of sub- stance between them, and, as far as I can tell, the present collection is unique. (2) (i) Headed ‘Oiris aithgherra’ (large lettering) (pp 260i-261 ‘8-9’), begins Rudhraighe o domhnaill etc., ends an bliadhain reimsgriobhtha 1608. Notice of the deaths of Rudhraighe and Cathbharr Ó Domhnaill, Cú Chonnacht Óg Mág Uidhir and Aodh Ó Néill, Baron of Dungannon (1608). (ii) Sub-heading ‘Oris ar thigh- earnaibh Tire Conaill do Shliocht Dalaigh et fad a bhflatha’ (pp 261m-262 ‘9-10’), begins Eigneachan mór ó domhnaill décc, ends 1603 (sic) Aodh .R. mc Aodha mc Magnusa do ecc an .10. Sep. 6. A chronological list of twenty-five chieftains of the O’Donnell royal line with date of death and duration of lordship. (iii) Begins An Calbach mór mac Maghnus dfhaghail báis íar ttuitim da each etc., ends Aodh mac Maghnusa tug maidhm Sligigh ar condae Sligigh et maidhm na druimnigh don taoibh thiar do neamhthainn ua Namhalgaidh [i.e. Néamhthainn ua nAmhalghaidh] ar mac Uilliam burc .i. Riosdard an íaroinn. A series of stray annals of O’Donnell his- tory from the fifteenth and sixteenth century respectively (pp 263-66 ‘11-14’). Immediately followed by subsection (3). (3) Headed ‘Bladh dairdsgealaibh et dimeachtaibh Aodh Rúaidh etc.’ (pp 266m-304 ‘14-52’). This is the abridged version of Beatha Aodha Ruaidh Uí Dhomhnaill edited below. It is immediately fol- lowed at the end (after the word ‘Finis’) by a further heading now partially erased, ‘Oiris Aithghearra’, below which the opening ‘Rudraidhe o d’ (see above c (2) (i)) has been erased and overwritten with text beginning 8. 1646 Magnus mc Neill gairbh mc Cuinn mc an Calbaigh etc. (4 lines) (incomplete). This latter entry repeats part of the penultimate item from section c (1) of the manuscript, p. 260 (battle of Benburb) (the opening figure ‘8’ corresponds to the scribal page-number on which the original item is found). The false start and repetition registered here, together with other miscopying in section c (1) of the manuscript are evidence of ineptitude on the part of the copyist that is much to the fore also in the copy of the Abridgement.

3. THE ABRIDGEMENT

The manuscript gives no indication that the text occurring in section c (3) is an abridgement of Beatha Aodha Ruaidh Uí Dhomhnaill (hereafter B), even if the term bladh ‘portion’, used in the heading that precedes it, might imply its derivation from a longer work. The 82 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH connection with the original is obscured in the early paragraphs (1- 9) by virtue of the drastically condensed rendering and the employ- ment of annalistic style and phraseology. Accordingly, while the text covering events of the years 1587-95 runs to approximately 60 printed pages in the edition, viz. B pp 1-119, this material is covered in approximately 2 printed pages of the Abridgement (hereafter A). The derivative character is strongly marked in subsequent para- graphs, however, both in terms of the sequence and substance of the narrative, and as a consequence of the technique whereby key sen- tences of the original are taken over and adapted to annalistic format, while short passages, including itineraries, listings of personal names etc., are often repeated verbatim. The author responsible clearly set out with the aim of extracting brief notice of important events seriatim from the original, while ignoring less important inci- dents and abundant other narrations and characterisations illustrative of the personality of the subject. The correlation between the text of A for the years 1596-1602 (paragraphs 10-44) and the source text B shows a broadly consistent pattern of proportionality, as illustrated by the following table contrasting the approximate number of printed pages occupied by each.

BA 1596: pp 120-35 (approx. 8 printed pages of text) ¤¤10-11 (approx. 1 p.) 1597: pp 136-69 (approx. 15 pp) ¤¤12-14 (approx. 1 p.) 1598: pp 170-95 (approx. 12 pp) ¤¤15-18 (approx. 1.5 p.) 1599: pp 196-237 (approx. 20 pp) ¤¤19-26 (approx. 4.5 pp) 1600: pp 238-85 (approx. 23 pp) ¤¤27-35 (approx. 4 pp) 1601: pp 286-339 (approx. 26 pp) ¤¤36-42 (approx. 3 pp) 1602: pp 340-47 (approx. 3.5 pp) ¤¤43-44 (approx. 1 p.)

For the most part the work of abridgement has been executed skil- fully and with discernment. Reduction of the contents has entailed extensive reformulation of the narrative, as might be expected, and also some adjustments of narrative sequence in the interest of con- gruity and continuity. Likewise, supplementary detail on matters of time and location is introduced for the sake of clarity. The author’s capacity for judicious re-ordering of elements of the original mater- ial as part of the process of abridgement is strikingly illustrated in the ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 83 concluding paragraph (¤44), where despite curtailment much of the force and poignancy of the original memorial is preserved. On the other hand, as shown in the commentary, the sense of the source is occasionally misconstrued (e.g. ¤22), and errors of dating and chron- ology occur, resulting from mistaken conflation of separate events (see commentary for ¤¤5, 10-11, 13, 28). Combined with other con- siderations related to the status of the copy (Section 6 infra), these shortcomings strongly suggest to us that the text was hastily drawn up.

Additional matter in A While the substance of A is almost exclusively drawn directly from B, some contents occur in the former which are not derived from the Life as we know it. Interesting points of additional infor- mation, to which attention is drawn in the commentary on the edi- tion, include a remark concerning Ó Domhnaill’s residency at Ballymote (¤17), and occasional details of toponymy such as men- tion of the location of the battle of the Curlews (¤25) and the refer- ence to a colloquial name for Sliabh Badhgna (¤14). But what may be regarded as the single most significant item of supplementary information is found in the context of the account of Ó Domhnaill’s raid on in 1600 (¤28). Both B and A report that during the raid Ó Domhnaill encamped to the west of Ennis where the Earl of Thomond was, whereupon the Earl secretly left the vicinity and betook himself with a group of followers to Clarecastle. What is not recorded in the Life, but is reported in the abridged version, is that a company of Ó Domhnaill’s forces, without his knowledge, then attacked Clarecastle, and that two of their number, named in the text as Tadhg Ó Baoighill and Duibhthion (i.e. Duibhgeann) Ó Cléirigh, were mortally wounded. The same incident is recorded also in the Annals of the Four Masters s.a. 1600, in which source the full name of the second individual is given as Duibhgionn mac Mheccon mic Con Coiccriche Uí Cleirigh.20 The genealogical information supplied here allows us to identify the casualty in question with one of five sons of Mac Con Ó Cléirigh (†1591), of whom the author of Beatha Aodha Ruaidh, Lughaidh Ó Cléirigh, was another.21 Now the fact that Ó Cléirigh should omit to mention the fatal wounding of his

20 For the wording of the Annals entry see the note concerning this paragraph (¤28) in the commentary. 21 For the genealogy of Lughaidh and the identification of Duibhgeann (mentioned in the Annals) as his brother see Walsh, Beatha Aodha Ruaidh Uí Dhomhnaill II 12. 84 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH brother in the passage of the Life alluded to above is certainly puzzl- ing. Inclusion of the information in the abridged text, which other- wise so closely adheres to the Life, suggests the possibility that its absence from our sole witness of B is as a result of an accident of transmission, and that the copy used for purposes of drafting A may have included it. Our assessment of corruptions present in the sole copy of the latter text (Section 6) could arguably be held to support such a conclusion. On the other hand, it is no less possible that the author drew on the Annals for the account of this incident,22 or alter- natively, added it from personal knowledge.

4. LANGUAGE AND STYLE

As noted, the derivation of the A text from Ó Cléirigh’s Life is reflected in its linguistic character also, with frequent traces of ver- batim correspondence observed in name sequences and other such listings Ð a factor which, incidentally, often enables the restoration of correct forms where the text of A as transmitted is corrupt. However, this is not to say that A adheres closely to the language and style of B. On the contrary, the evidence is that the author of A set out to ren- der the material in a radically different idiom. As is well known, B has (according to Walsh’s characterisation) a ‘highly artificial and archaic’ flavour.23 In order to illustrate briefly the contrast presented by the language and style of the Abridgement, we may here com- ment on a sample of short corresponding passages from both texts (numbered 1-3 below).24

(1) [Subject: Stand-off before battle of the Curlews]

A ¤25 … Iar mbeith don Gobernóir cona slúagh frí ré seachtmhaine ag bagar gach laoi teacht tresan mBealach mBuidhe d’aimhdheóin I Domhnaill do geall co mbiadh oidhche ’na longphort arna bhúain de et sraonadh fair. Ro thionsgain an gealladh sin do comhall, óir do tríall ón Mainistir an 15 August. 22 There are no obvious verbal correspondences linking the respective accounts, however. 23 Walsh, Beatha Aodha Ruaidh Uí Dhomhnaill II 18; T. F. O’Rahilly refers to ‘the hopeless antiquarianism and dreary artificiality of Lughaidh Ó Cléirigh’ (Desiderius (Dublin 1941) p. xli). 24 The passages from A are here printed as edited, but without indication of changes marked in the edition. ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 85 B ¤119 p. 222 ll 23-30 … boíside fri re sechtmhaine oc fúr 7 occ foichill an erthrialla do roine fodheoidh. No bhidsidhe og baig briathar 7 og tathaoir 7 og tarcusal forsan tuaiscert gach laoi 7 oga radh go rachadh día naimhdheoin tarsan slíabh badhthuaidh. Ro bhaoi samhlaidh go fel naomh Muire mathar an Choimdhedh isin cuiged la .x. do August. Ro gheall somh an la sin sainredh go mbeith i longphort Ui Dhomhnaill ria nadaigh ier maidhm fora mhuintir. Comment Archaic features in this passage in B include the preverb no with the imperfect tense (no bhidsidhe), a usage observed throughout that text, and consistent employment of the perfec- tive preverb ro (modern do). A shows variation between ro and do here as elsewhere in accordance with regular classical E. Mod. Ir. usage (do geall, ro thionsgain); archaic no is nowhere used. Also noteworthy are A’s modernising replacement of sub- junctive go mbeith to express purpose by conditional co mbiadh, while retaining the genitive of time (gach laoi) common in the usage of classical Irish. (2) [Muster in preparation for raid on Thomond] A ¤28 … Do cuir togairm et tionol ar Ghaoidhiolaibh Choigidh Connocht uile o Shuca co Drobhaois et ó Thir Ua nAmhalgadha co Breifne Í Raghallaigh, co mbattar uile lion a ttionóil et a ttoich- iostail a mBaile an Mhótaigh. B ¤135 p. 250 ll 22-27 Ro fhaoidhestair a thechta ríamh go Gaoidelaibh coiccidh Meadhbha dia fhorail forra i mbeith fora chind i mBaile an Mhotaigh. Donangatar Connachtaigh uile o Shuca co Drobhaois 7 ó iarthar Thire hAmhalgadha co Bréifne Uí Raghallaigh go mbattar occá fhurnaidhe isin mbaile sin inro dhálastair friu. Comment Both the Mid. Ir. pret. deponent ending (-(e)astair in ro fhaoidh- estair, inro dhálastair) and the petrified infixed pronoun (-n-in donangatar), are frequently occurring archaisms in B. Neither is instanced anywhere in A. Literary names such as C. Mheadhbha, common in B, are replaced in A (C. Connocht). The nominative 86 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH of accompaniment exemplified in this passage in A (líon a ttionóil) is not prompted by the corresponding extract from the source, but is well attested in classical Irish. (3) [Slaying of Chamberlain by Ó Dochartaigh] A ¤35 A n-urthosach na bliadhno so aon do laithibh tugsat Goill Doire um Colonel oirdhearc ro budh uachtarán doibh – Sir Iohn Camberlén a comhainm – ionnsaidhe aingidhe ainiarmartach ar Ó nDochartaigh Seaan Óg, et do budh fearr do na Gallaibh na ttugdís an ionnsaidhe sin, óir níorbo soirbh deabaidh ris an tí boi ansin, an gcéin do bhói an toice ag congnamh leis et le a tigh- earna, et do briseadh ar Gallaibh et do marbadh a gColonel co ndaoinibh iomdha oile ina fhochair le hÚa nDochartaigh. B ¤156 p. 286 ll 11-22 Acht namá tan ann do bertsat Gaill Doiri ammus amhnus etrocar for Úa nDochartaigh Seaan Ócc dus an ttáirsitis boeghal gona nó gabhala fair. Ara aoí robadh cenn i ccuithe leomhan nó lamh i nead ghribhe a ionnsoigidh itir cein baoi an toice 7 an conách ag congnam lais 7 la a choimdidh talmanda. êar rochtain dona Gallaibh atrubhramar eineach ind ionchaibh fri hUa nDochartaigh ro fhúabair cách a cheli dhíobh co haingidh éttro- car co raoimhidh dona Gallaibh. Ro mudaighit sochaidhe uaidh- ibh imón Corinél ba tóisiuch iomghona dhoibh. Ridire airrderc eisidhe Ser Iohn Chamberlin atacomhnaic. Comment Among the means adopted in A to achieve reduction of the orig- inal narrative here are the jettisoning of tautologous collocations (boeghal gona nó gabhala; an toice 7 an conách) and the replacement of metaphorical circumlocution by factual state- ment (robadh cenn i ccuithe leomhan etc. > níorbo soirbh deabaidh ris). A capacity for independent literary expression on A’s part shows in the supplanting of the alliterative phrase ammus amhnus etrocar by the just as vigorous formulation ionn- saidhe aingidhe ainiarmartach. Vocabulary is modernised (coimdidh talmanda > tighearna, cein (conj.) > an gcéin), and the archaic verbal system of the source is eradicated mainly in favour of classical Irish forms. Thus Mid. Ir. pret. pass. pl. ro mudaighit (a regular morphology throughout B which is consis- ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 87 tently avoided in A)> do marbadh; Mid. Ir. pret. do bertsat > tugsat, co raoimhidh > do briseadh; and the archaic locution with 3 sg. masc. infixed pron. atacomhnaic (< ad-cumaing) is re- placed by a nominal phrase a c(h)omhainm. A likely dialectal influence is represented in the passage from A by the form na ttugdís, showing reduction of the dependent negative particle (nach > na) followed by eclipsis, which is attested in present- day northern Irish speech.25 The overall pattern revealed by this exercise shows both the bom- bastic vocabulary and style and the principal archaic linguistic forms of B discarded in favour of a more direct and modern idiom. But it would be incorrect to imply that the modernisation has been carried through with anything approaching complete consistency. The rea- son for some inconsistencies may be sought perhaps in the character of the transmission. Thus isolated traces of dialectal usage, such as the example observed in item (3) above, seem likely to be scribal rather than authorial in origin.26 On the other hand, throughout all of the text there is also an observable tendency towards obsolete liter- ary usage. While some of the text’s archaisms arise as a result of ver- batim adherence to the original,27 others are unprompted by the wording of the source, and hence may be safely seen as proper to the style of the author of the Abridgement. The majority of such forms are concentrated in the verbal system, notably among the forms of the copula and the substantive verb. As they constitute telling evi- dence that the author had the benefit of training in the learning of the schools they may be conveniently drawn together here. Notice of obsolete forms28 Preverbs. While ro and do are both found with the past tense used independently (above, Section 4, item (2)),29 in association with the conjunction co,Mid. Ir. co ro is much commoner than the later gur, e.g. go ro ghabhsat ¤15, go ro cinnsiot ¤15, co ro marbadh ¤¤25, 39, co ro sgithigheadh ¤37, co ro tuirsighiodh ¤37, co ro suigheadh ¤37, 25 For examples see phonetic transcriptions corresponding to the forms nach bhfuigh- ead sé, nach bhfacaigh, nách dtiocfadh, in Heinrich Wagner, Gaeilge Theilinn (Baile Átha Cliath 1959) 264, 269, 278. Compare further the unclassical nach ttiobhradh ¤30. 26 See further remarks on orthography below (Section 6). 27 For documentation see commentary passim. 28 Significant individual forms are considered in the commentary. 29 Instances of omission of the preverb are rare and seem attributable to scribal error; see commentary p. 134 (n. on do gabhadh). 88 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH go ro loisgeadh, co ro creachtnuigheadh ¤39; but gur ghabh ¤35, gur chuirsiot ¤41. Similarly in conjunction with prep. + rel. perf. forms, e.g. an ro gonadh ¤13; ar ro chinnsiot ¤27, inn ro gab ¤37, and (with demons. rel. pron.) an ro cruinnigsiot ¤31. Compare also the alternation between ní ro and níor, e.g. niro thoirmiosgsiot ¤16, ní ro hanadh ¤20, ní ro proinnsiot, ní ro chodailsiot ¤30, níor labuir ¤36; cf. also na ro fhéadsat ¤27. Copula. Alongside regular E. Mod. Ir. pret. 3 sg. ra ba ¤17, ba ¤¤11, 38, ro budh ¤12, do bo ¤44, and (with prep. + rel.) inn rob ¤37, we find Mid. Ir. neg. (with unapocopated final) níorbo, níorbho, níorbó ¤14 (et passim); 3 pl. robdar ¤¤13, 14, 30 (see note), and (with conj.) gurbád ¤30. Substantive verb. The range includes a mixture of current E. Mod. Ir. and anachronistic forms in the preterite,30 viz. 3 sg. do baoi ¤17, -baoi ¤¤19, 38, 39, baoi ¤23, bhoí ¤¤21, 24, boí (rel.) ¤35, bhoí (rel.) ¤¤38, 39, 42, bhaoí (rel.) ¤¤16, 25, bhaoi ¤25, boi ¤23, 32, do bhoí ¤¤26, 35, -boí ¤40, and also -raibh ¤23, -raibhe ¤¤36, 37, -raba ¤41; 3 pl. do bhadar ¤¤11, 31, battar ¤¤13, 16 (rel.), ¤¤37, 39; see also co ra battar ¤15, co mbattur ¤¤15, 28; pass. ro bás ¤13, do bhás ¤16 (see note), ¤¤25, 44. Various additional isolated archaisms occur autonomously, but may possibly be influenced by expressions occurring in passages of the original not utilised in the Abridgement. Such include the Mid. Ir. pret. pass. pl. form do rada ¤22; demons. rel. pron. ina ¤¤20, 30 (but contrast a tternó ¤16); conjs cidh resiú (¤36) and an (¤40) (see respective notes); and the phrase i ndibh leithibh (¤23).31

5. DATE AND AUTHORSHIP

While the manuscript copy is of the eighteenth century, argument adduced above leads to the conclusion that the author of the abridged Life was a product of the schools, and this in turn points to a date of composition perhaps no later than about the mid-seventeenth cen- tury. That assessment is in keeping with the recognition of extensive textual corruption. Other more tentative considerations in support of a seventeenth-century composition date may also be mentioned. Both the annalistic format of the abridged Life and its location in the manuscript immediately following other extensive annalistic matter

30 Owing to inconsistent marking of lenition, many forms are of uncertain status. 31 For further forms see commentary on the following: boin ¤14, roptar scithigh ¤30, do neoch ¤34. ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 89 of a miscellaneous kind connected with the O’Donnells (manuscript section c items (1) and (2)) are factors which suggest that it origi- nated, in conjunction with the compilation that precedes it, as part of a digest of Donegal history. In the absence of a study of the sources and make-up of the annalistic component itself, little can be said with confidence regarding its possible date and provenance. How- ever, like the Abridgement it also bears the marks of serious textual corruption.32 This suggests that, at the very least, compilation must predate the stage of transmission represented by the manuscript copy. A probable superior limit for the material is provided by the latest date mentioned, namely 1646 (battle of Benburb) (manuscript section c items (1) and (3) (item repeated)), a date which in turn is consistent with the linguistic character of our text A. As to the provenance of the combined contents of this section of the manuscript (c (1)-(3)), it seems fair to speculate, given their shared concern with the subject of Donegal history, that they may have been drafted at a centre associated with the Ó Cléirigh family of historians, to whom, after all, we owe much of what is extant of the general records of Donegal and the O’Donnells. At the same time the possibility that the separate components might be the work of a single author seems contra-indicated by what, as must be acknowl- edged, is a striking contrast between the somewhat random and unready assembly of material that characterises the annalistic com- pilation, and the well-wrought character of the abridged Life. What then of the possible identity of the author of A? Having regard to the possibility mooted already that it is the work of a mem- ber of the Ó Cléirigh family who flourished about the middle of the seventeenth century, it seems natural to ask whether Cú Choigcríche () Ó Cléirigh, the Annalist, may have been the author responsible. Reference was made earlier to the role played by him both as scribe of the unique copy of B and as the scholar who may have been responsible for the incorporation of that work’s contents into the Annals of the Four Masters. Ó Cléirigh was possessed of a mastery of all the requisite techniques of redaction and epitomisation which the Abridgement shows to good effect. On the other hand, there is no direct evidence whatever linking him to the enterprise, so that the proposed speculation is highly tentative. Besides, the text as transmitted includes a number of conspicuous errors which, although possibly introduced by the scribe, could also be due to the author.33 32 See section 2 above. 33 See commentary on placenames mentioned in ¤¤3, 22 etc. 90 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH Any one such lapse, if it could be identified as original to the text, would potentially undermine the case in favour of Ó Cléirigh as a possible author, since it would conflict with the otherwise sterling record of accuracy and erudition to which his attested scholarly works bear witness.34

6. STATUS OF COPY The manuscript text is marred by copious omissions, misreadings, and other signs of corruption, necessitating wide-ranging editorial emendation on the authority of the source on which it is based (B). This corruption is presumably in some measure due to the scribe, whose shortcomings are much in evidence elsewhere in the vol- ume.35 He clearly faced difficulties in reading his exemplar, as indi- cated by the presence throughout the text of short spaces for letters and words left unwritten (see footnoted manuscript readings ¤1 no. 1, ¤9 no. 12, ¤16 no. 24, ¤22 no. 37, ¤25 no. 51) and the misrepre- sentation of abbreviations (¤11 no. 16, ¤30 no. 65). The particular practice of indicating omissions might seem at first sight to point to a concern for accuracy on the scribe’s part. On the other hand, even if the exemplar was poorly written, the fact that s is written for f in the forms of well-known placenames such as Cora Finne (Corofin) and Leithfear (Lifford) (see footnotes to text nos. 34, 69), suggests a decidedly low level of understanding of the subject matter, as do also the misreadings mac for Ó (surname, e.g. footnote 2), et for Mic (sur- name, footnote 9). This negative estimate seems confirmed by the observation of cases throughout the text in which words and parts of words essen- tial to the meaning are omitted, necessitating editorial restoration (in 34 The argument that Cú Choigcríche Ó Cléirigh was responsible for incorporation of material from the Life in the Annals might lead us to expect corroboration from that source on the issue of the Abridgement’s authorship, based on correspondences in wording and formulation. However, the degree of condensation of subject matter in the Abridgement is of such an order as to make comparison with the Annals along such lines unproductive. (See remarks concerning the formulation in both sources of their respective accounts of events in ¤28, above n. 22.) 35 John O Donovan formed a poor opinion of the scribe, to judge from some of his marginal comments at the beginning of the manuscript. Thus at p. 6 commenting on a sentence of text which reads ‘An tan bhios t. roimh s. ni bhi aice féin, na ag s. act amhain brigh h.’, he writes: ‘ni fír duit sin, a aineolaidhe!’ As it happens, however, O’Donovan’s stricture seems misplaced in this instance, since ‘ts’ is sometimes used by scribes to indicate a lenited s (on ts, tsh for expected lenited s see Brian Ó Cuív, Celtica 10 (1973) 124-5). Incidentally, O’Donovan appears to view the scribe here as author of the text he was transcribing. ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 91 addition to gaps listed above, see ¤¤17, 22 etc.). Of course these omissions may or may not represent accurately the reading of the scribe’s exemplar. That uncertainty also applies to a further series of misreadings of parts of words or entire words including several place- names (see ¤3; also footnotes to text nos. 21, 24, 30, 36, 40, 58, 62, 82, 86), and an occasional dittography (¤¤21, 22). It may well be asked how placename elements of the original text (B) in particular could undergo the species of transmogrification exemplified in some of A’s readings. One possibility is that these were present in the source from which the author of the latter text worked, which in turn would imply that his source was different from the copy of B which has come down to us. We have already adverted to the presence of additional matter not found in the surviving copy of B as showing that the author of A may have worked from a differ- ent manuscript than that which is extant (above, Section 3). On the other hand, the likelihood seems minimal indeed that he should have drawn for his source from a copy which showed such manifest cor- ruption. This corruption seems much more likely to have arisen in a piecemeal fashion as part of a protracted process of transmission. Some indication of possible stages in that transmission process may be drawn from a consideration of one or two departures from the forms of B which seem unlikely to have featured in A as first drafted. Thus the replacement of original Bealach an Fhiodhfhail (in the Burren of Clare) by Bealach an Mhuighre (Moiry Pass, Co. Armagh)36 could indicate that the copyist responsible for introducing that particular corruption was more familiar with Ulster placenames than with those of the southern half. Another error open to a similar interpretation is the repeated misrepresentation of the name of the R. Fergus (¤28 and note). These errors are in turn compatible with occa- sional linguistic and orthographical features suggesting Ulster provenance.37 On the other hand, outside of the present text our manu- script shows occasional symptoms of Connacht influence,38 and the text of the abridged Life itself also contains forms pointing to that location.39 36 ¤22, footnote 36; see note in commentary. 37 For reference to a possible Ulster dialect feature in the text see above p. 87 (and n. 25); on the orthographical evidence see below. 38 See, for example, the form leitheide (p. 2), common in western Irish, and for which see Tomás de Bhaldraithe, Gaeilge Chois Fhairrge: an deilbhíocht (1953) 354 s.v. 39 A case in point is the non-flexion in the genitive of polysyllables ending in acht see commentary ¤40 (n. furtacht); on this feature in Connacht see de Bhaldraithe, Gaeilge Chois Fhairrge 35. 92 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH One puzzling physical feature of the manuscript remaining to be considered is that substantial blanks are left here and there without ostensible reason (footnotes to text nos. 20, 39, 57, 72). The possi- bility might be entertained that these reflect the presence of similar gaps in the exemplar in which they were intended to accommodate additional text. However, this seems improbable in view of the fact that the first series of blank pages to occur comprises considerably more writing space than would be adequate to accommodate the full text of the original source omitted by the Abridgement at this point. Nor is there any evidence to support the view that text was lost from the Abridgement at points elsewhere in the manuscript where large blanks occur.

Orthography In general the spelling of the manuscript adheres to the conven- tions of Early Modern Irish. However, signs of carelessness are fre- quent, among them omission of marks of lenition (c, t unexcepted) and vowel length, and consistent use of the compendium for ar to indicate ar / air. Interchange of non-initial dh, gh (often written d, g) is common (MS bladh, braidh[d]eanas, alla muidh, cogaigh, dheoigh, dhiaigh, aghmhilleadh, ro luidh, athaidh etc.); likewise the substitution of bh for mh (inairibh, Gaillibh). Other peculiarities are double nn for n in post-vocalic position (e.g. léigionn, ann (gach), annsin, mur ann gceadna), and single n for nn (e.g. comrantaib, son- radh, dícheanadh, ionsaidhe, Corca Baiscin, do randis). Treatment of palatal s is idiosyncratic. Its replacement by broad s between vowels shows in oiriosamh (¤24 and note); and broadening of an originally slender consonant cluster that includes s occurs in Seorsa (< Seoirse) (¤6 and n.). The palatal sibilant is sometimes marked in intervocalic position by insertion of a preceding o (e.g. sliosean, ro bhriosiodar); non-indication of palatalisation of s pre- ceded or followed by another consonant occurs also (e.g. toirmios- gsiot, ro ionnsaigsat, sgaoilsat, Iustis). Taken together these spellings could reflect a modified articulation of the palatal sibilant along lines observed in the phonetic of speakers of northern Irish as described by Quiggin.40

40 Cf. E. C. Quiggin, A dialect of Donegal (Cambridge 1906) §351: ‘The acoustic effect of the Donegal sound is very different from that of English, French or German ʃ. It suggests to me s+j …’ (p. 120). For commentary on a so-called ‘retroflex’ artic- ulation of the sibilant as a feature of certain consonant clusters in northern Irish see Seosamh Watson, ‘Cairn rs sr i gcanúintí na Gaeilge’ Éigse 29 (1996) 121-36. ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 93 Further disregard for the well-known prohibition caol re leathan do ghuthaidhibh, such as was noted in the treatment of medial s,is evident at the juncture of consonants in the spellings bhfaghdís, tiagdís, ttugdís, randis. Similar absence of congruity occurs in com- pounds in which the final of the first element is unaffected by slender initial in the second, reflecting likely pronunciation, e.g. raondírghe, banríoghan, muchdhedoil, comhchiorrbadh, ubhallmheall, daing- eaninnille. Finally, Mid. Ir. spellings are sometimes adopted from the source, e.g. i for a (poss. adj., demons. rel. pron.).

7. EDITION

Word-division has been regularised; punctuation, the use of capitals, and division into numbered paragraphs are editorial also. Notice of both paginations found in the manuscript is incorporated in the body of the text throughout, but catchwords are not recorded. Dates entered in the left margin of pages of the manuscript are centred in the edition. Abbreviations are silently expanded except in doubtful cases, which are marked by the use of italic.Thus the compendia for ar and us are expanded air, uis as appropriate. Similarly, copula forms writ- b ten‘ 7’ in the manuscript are printed as ‘budh’, since both ‘budh’ and ‘ba’ are sometimes found written out.41 By contrast the English title usually abbreviated in the manuscript as ‘Sr’is expanded throughout in the form ‘Sir’, since this is the form it takes when written out (§27). I have retained Latin ‘et’ as the form of the connective throughout, since it is regularly so written in the manuscript. A small number of orthographical modifications are made in the interests of conformity with classical usage, including (a) supply of certain absent letters (glide vowels e/i after palatal s; n in cases where the double consonant is written as single n; other historical consonants except where contra-indicated by repetition);42 (b) drop- ping of superfluous ones (e.g. o preceding palatal s). On the other hand, in the interests of presenting as faithful a picture as possible of the manuscript I refrain from supplying absent marks of lenition and length, except in one or two rare cases to offset possible confusion. Irregular spellings of proper names are usually retained unaltered,

41 See list of forms above p. 88. 42 See, for example, note in commentary on diuraice ¤25. 94 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH especially where they seem to reflect pronunciation (e.g. Seorsa, Rusdard), as are also idiosyncratic spellings which are demonstrably adopted from the source. Other emendation is introduced only where material corruption is present and/or can be certified by usage else- where in the text, or by reference to the original; all such departures are noticed in the commentary. Letters and groups of letters added editorially are indicated within square brackets [ ]; superfluous letters and groups of letters are marked for deletion in pointed brackets < >. Editorial substitution is indicated by the use of round brackets ( ), with the corresponding reading of the manuscript relegated to the foot of the page. The aster- isk * marks a crux discussed in the notes. The commentary contains discussion of points of textual, histori- cal and linguistic interest, as well as full documentation of parallel passages in B. A translation is supplied.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am indebted to Professor Tomás Ó Con Cheanainn for helpful corrections and suggestions, and to Colm Croker for painstaking assistance. My thanks are due also to colleagues and students who participated in discussion of the text as part of the commemorative ‘Colloquium 1602-2002’, which was held at University College Dublin (Spring 2002). I am obliged to the Council of Trustees of the National Library of Ireland for permission to publish the text. ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 95

TEXT

G 488, p. ‘14’ (266)

BLADH D’AIRSGEALAIBH ET D’IM[TH]EACHTAIBH AODH[A] RÚAIDH MIC AODH[A] MIC MAGHNUSA ê DHOMHNAILL, ANN A BHFUIL SUIM ET EIFEACHT A GNêOMH ANN GACH BLIADHAIN Mê ET RÁITHE O [DO] GABADH LE GALLAIBH AR CHÚAN NA SUILIGHE É CO [A] ÉCC SAN SPÁIN.

1587 1. Aodh Ruadh mac Aodha mic Man[usa]1 do gabhail et do cuibhreach re Gallaibh Duibhlinne im Fhéil Michíl na bliadhna so, et ní raibhe ach a n-aois a cúig mbliadhna .x. an tan sin et rugadh é [i] láimh co hÁth Clíath, et íar mbeith dho tri blíadhna et ráithe i mbraidh[d]eanas ro eloidh an ceanna feacht a hAth Clíath, et rugadh e tar ais doridhis co Caislean an Rígh le Feidhlim (Ó)2 Tuathail.

TRANSLATION

A PORTION OF THE EXPLOITS AND CAMPAIGNS OF AODH RUADH SON OF AODH SON OF MAGHNUS Ó DOMHNAILL IN WHICH ARE GIVEN THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF HIS DEEDS IN EACH YEAR AND QUARTER FROM THE TIME HE WAS TAKEN PRISONER BY THE ENGLISH AT SWILLY HAVEN UNTIL HIS DEATH IN SPAIN.

1587 1. Aodh Ruadh captured and imprisoned by the English of Dublin around the feast of St Michael in this year, and he was but fifteen years of age at that time. And he was taken in captivity to Dublin, and having been three and a quarter years in captivity he escaped for the first time from Dublin and was brought back again to the King’s Castle by Feidhlim Ó Tuathail.

1 man followed by space 2 mac 96 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH 159(2)3 2. / (‘15’ (267)) Elodh do i gcionn bliadhna doridhisi a n-urthosach4 na blíadhna ar ccinn, oidhche Nodhlag Beg do shunnradh, et a thocht día thír, et tighearna do ghairm dhe do thoil [a] athar et urmhó[i]r maithe Conallach an treas lá do Shamhradh do shonnradh.

1593 3. Maidhm Bheóil Átha Cúlmhuine* ar an Éirne do thabhairt le hO Néill Aodh mac an Fir Dhorcha et lé marasgal in Iubhair Sir Henri Beagaing co ttoichiostal Gall ar Maguidhir Aodh mac Con Connocht an seis(e)adh5 lá do October.

1594 4. Maidhm Atha na mBriosgadh do thabhairt le Mag Uidhir Aodh et lé Corbmac mac an Barúin Í Néill i gcedthosach Foghmhair na bliadhna so et le muinntir Ui Domhnaill, Aodh Rúadh, ar Ghallaibh.

1595 5. Creachadh mainistreach na Búille ó rugadh céd loil- gheach et creachadh Machaire Connocht le hO nDomhnaill a mí Márta na bliadhna so, et na creacha sin [do] bhreith o Sir Riosdard Bingam Presidinsi Coigidh Connocht et óna comrantaibh cogaidh do Gallaibh et do Ghaoidhiolaibh go Liathtruim Muintire hEoluis6 Satharn Casg do sonradh, et Caisg do sollamhnugadh do annsin. Et a dhul cona sochraide don Angaile, et Longfort I Ferghail co cceithre caisleanaibh oile do / (‘16’ (268)) losgadh ré a sluagh- aibh. Et an da Angaile do creachadh leó Mairt Chasg, et creacha[dh] Gall an Cubáin Dia Dardaoin. In aointseachtmuin do righne na nei(t)hi7 si.

6. Seorsa Óg Bingam do mharbhadh le hUillioc [a] Búrc mac Remuinn na Sgúab mic Uillic na cC(ea)nn8 i mbaile Sligigh, et an baile do bhuain amach d’Uillioc et a thabhairt d’O Dhomhnaill i mí Iún na bliadhna so. 3 1591 4 úr-. 5 seismadh 6 The letters he in ras. 7 neichi 8 ccionn ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 97 1592 2. (He) escaped after a year again at the very start of the follow- ing year, on the night of Little Christmas precisely, and came into his territory, and was inaugurated as lord by the will of his father and the majority of the nobles of Tír Chonaill on 3 May precisely.

1593 3. The battle of the Ford of (Galloon) on the Erne won by Ó Néill Aodh son of Fear Dorcha and the Marshal of Newry Sir Henry Bagenal with a force of English against Mág Uidhir Aodh son of Cú Chonnacht on the sixth day of October.

1594 4. The battle of the Ford of the Biscuits won by Mág Uidhir Aodh and Cormac son of the Baron Ó Néill at the beginning of August in this year and by the followers of Ó Domhnaill, Aodh Ruadh, against the English.

1595 5. The monastery of plundered from where a hundred milch cows were taken, and the Plain of Connacht plundered by Ó Domhnaill in the month of March of this year; and these preys were taken from Sir Richard Bingham, President of the province of Connacht and from his allies, both of English and Irish, to Liathtruim Muintire hEolais on Easter Saturday precisely, and Easter was cele- brated there. And he went with his troops to Annaly, and Longphort Uí Fhearghail was burned by his troops together with four other castles. And the two Annalys were plundered by them on Easter Tuesday, and the English of Cavan were plundered on Thursday. In one week he accomplished these things.

6. George Bingham junior killed by Uilleag a Búrc son of Réamann na Sgúab son of Uilleag na gCeann in Sligo town, and the town taken by Uilleag and given to Ó Domhnaill in the month of June of this year. 98 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH 7. Caislean Mór (Mic)9 Coisdealbhaigh et Turlach Mucháin do gabháil re hUa nDomhnaill cona slúagh a mí August na bliadhna cedhna, et creacha Conmaicne et Muintire Murchadha [et] leath- imil[l] Úa Maine et an Machaire Riabh(aigh)10 [et] Túama Da Ghualan[n] leo mur an ccédhna, et a ttabhairt leo dia ttíribh. Marbadh Chaiptin Martín le Féidhlim Ríabhach Mac Dauéid don taobh aníar do Sligeach, et cosnamh baile Sligigh co fearda do bardaibh I Domhnaill ré Sir Risdard Bingam cona sluaghoibh, et na creacha réimhráite do bhreith dá aimhdheóin do slúagh Í Domhnaill co Tír Chonaill. 8. Níorbo cían íar sin co ndeachaidh O Domhnaill co Coigeadh Connocht a meadhon Foghmhair na bliadhna so et / (‘17’ (269)) do bris caisléan Sligigh et trí caisléin .x. do cai[s]léanoibh an tíre ’na timchioll ría ttiontugadh do dia thír. Rug braighde ó na huaislibh do bh’omhan leis do dhol ina aghaidh no aimhríar do dheanamh. 9. Do chuaidh O Domhnaill doridhis co Connochtaib i mí December na blíadhna so, et do ghoir Mac Uilliam do Tioboid mac Bhaiteir Ciotaigh [mic] Seaain m(i)c11 Oiluéruis; ase fos do ghoir O Ceallaigh don Fhear Dorcha mac Ceallaigh mic Domhnaill mic Aodha na gCailleach, et Mac Diarmada Muighe Luirg do Chonchobar mac Taidhg mic Eoghain, Mac Donnchaidh Tíre hOiliolla do Mhuirgheas Caoch mac Taidhg, et Mac [Donnchaidh]12 an Chorainn do (Rudhraighe)13 mac Aodha, et Ó hEadhra Riabhach d’Feidhlim mhac Con Caisil. 1596 10. Ba isin bliadhainsi do cuireadh Iarla Urmhumhan Tomas Buitiléir et airdeasbug Caisil Maol Muire Mac R(a)ith14 i tteach- taireacht co hUa nDomhnaill et co hÚa Néill cona ccomhaonta cogaidh archeana gosan Sráidbhaile d’aslach et d’iarraidh síodha ar Gaoidhealaibh. Et do tairgeadh doibh a[s]15 ucht na Banríogan Cuige Uladh uile acht amháin an méid ata dhe o Sráidbhaile co Droichiod Atha, et / (‘18’ (270)) gairiosun do bheith i cCarraig Fearghusa, a 9 et 10 Riabhach 11 mac 12 Space in MS 13 Ruaidhridhe 14 Ráith 15 acht ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 99 7. Castlemore Costello and Turlach Mocháin (were) captured by Ó Domhnaill with his following in the month of August of the same year, and likewise the preys of Conmhaicne and Muintir Mhurchadha and of the borders of Uí Mhaine and Machaire Riabhach and of Tuaim Dá Ghualann, and (they were) taken with them to their (own) territories. Captain Martin killed by Feidhlim Riabhach Mac Dauéid to the west of Sligo and the town of Sligo bravely defended by Ó Domhnaill’s guards against Sir Richard Bingham with his troops, and the aforesaid preys (were) taken in spite of him by Ó Domhnaill’s troop to Tír Chonaill.

8. It was not long after that until Ó Domhnaill went to the province of Connacht in September of this year and he destroyed Sligo castle and thirteen other castles of the country around it before returning to his territory. He took hostages from the nobles who he feared might oppose him or would disobey.

9. Ó Domhnaill went again to Connacht in the month of December of this year, and he nominated Tiobóid son of Bháitéar Ciotach son of Seaán son of Oilbhéaras as Mac Uilliam. It was he also who nom- inated Fear Dorcha son of Ceallach son of Domhnall son of Aodh na gCailleach as Ó Ceallaigh; and Conchobhar son of Tadhg son of Eoghan as Mac Diarmada; Caoch son of Tadhg as Mac Donnchaidh of Tirerrill; and Rudhraighe son of Aodh as Mac Donnchaidh of Corann; and Feidhlim son of Cú Chaisil as Ó hEadhra Riabhach.

1596 10. It was in this year that the Earl of Ormond Tomás Butler and the archbishop of Cashel Maolmhuire Mac Raith were dispatched with a message to Ó Domhnaill and Ó Néill and all their war allies to Dundalk to treat and ask for peace from the Irish, and they were offered in the name of the Queen the whole of the province of Ulster, but for that part of it from Dundalk to Drogheda, and that a garrison be kept in Carrickfergus, in Carlingford and in Newry. And they 100 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH gCairrlinn et isin Iubhar. Et fos do tairgeadh doibh gan gouernora no oificigh ar bith, no maor [ar] bith do léigion orra san Cúige, acht íad féin do ionnlacadh an cíosa do amhlaighdar* a sinnsir feacht ríamh do coróin Saxan go hÁth Clíath, et na comhadha ceadhna da ccom- rantaibh cogaigh i gConnachtaibh. Iar sg[r]udadh a ccomhairle do Gaoidhealaibh imon teachtaireacht sin as air ró cinnsiot fa dheóidh diúltadh na gcomhadha do tairgeadh dóibh ar iomad d’adhbharaibh.

11. Ba i mí Iún na blíadhna so tainig Sir Iohn Noruis general cogaidh na Banriogan i nEirinn, Iarla Tuadhmhumhan Donnchadh mac Conchobhair ê Briain [et] êarla Cloinne Riocairt Uillioc mac Rio- caird Saxanaigh gusan líon sochruide as mo ro fhéadsatt do thionól no do thiomsugadh, et ní ro ansat co rangattar for ur na habhann dana hainm Rodhba. Do chúaidh trá O Domhnaill cona [t]hoicheasttal co rainig don taobh araill don abainn ceadhno. Asíad na maithe tanguttar fo a thogairm, cenmothat Cenel gConaill, O Rúairc Brían Óg mac Briain mic Briain Bhallaigh co sochruide catha O mBriúin, O Conchobhair Ruadh Aodh mac Toirrdhealbaigh Ruaidh cona toicheasdal, Mac Diarmada Muighe / (‘19’ (271)) Luirg Conchobhar Óg mac Taidhg, Ó Ceallaigh an Fear Dorcha, an dá Ó hEaghra et a[n] dá Mhac Donnchaidh, et Mac Uilliam [a] Búrc Tiobóid mac Baitéir (Ciotaig),16 íad sidhe uile co líon a slúagh. Do bhadar [a] slúagh ceachtardha sin aghaidh a n-aghaidh amhlaidh sin athaidh fhoda, et teachtaireacht anun[n] anall eatorra, et íad a n-urfhoichill ar a chéile gur caithiodar a lóinte, et [ro] iompadar ar gach táoibh día ttigibh gan gniom n-oirderc do dhénamh eatorra ach amhlaidh sin.

1597 12. Creacha[dh Ó] Maine et túaithe an Chalaidh le sluagh ê Domhnaill an bliadhainsi, et gabhail Átha an Ríogh; creacha[dh] an tíre ó Bhaile an Ríogh, et Ráith Gorgín síar co Rinn Mhil17 et co Meathra et co doras na Gaillmhe, et ro budh lía da ccreachaibh ina mar do fheadsatt a ttiomáin* ag iompadh da ttightibh dóibh.

13. In Earrach na bliadhna so Gouernóir Coigidh Connocht Sir Coinius Clifford, êarla Cloinne Riocaird, Iarla Tuadhmhumhan,

16 ciondg with stroke above d 17 rinnimhil ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 101 were offered besides that no governors or any officers or any stew- ard would be installed over them in the province, but that they them- selves would convey the dues that their ancestors formerly conceded (?) to the crown of England to Dublin, and the same conditions to apply to their allies in Connacht. Counsel concerning that message having been taken by the Irish, what they decided finally was to refuse the terms that were offered to them for many reasons.

11. It was in the month of June of this year that Sir John Norris the Queen’s war-general in Ireland, the Earl of Thomond Donnchadh son of Conchobhar Ó Briain, and the Earl of Clanrickard Uilleag son of Riocard Saxanach, came with the biggest force of troops they could muster or collect, and they did not pause until they arrived at the edge of the river called the Robe. So Ó Domhnaill set out with his muster and reached the other side of the same river. The nobles who answered his summons apart from Ceinéal gConaill were these: Ó Ruairc, Brian Óg son of Brian son of Brian Ballach with the battle- troop of Uí Bhriúin; Ó Conchobhair Ruadh, Aodh son of Toirrdheal- bhach Ruadh with his following; Mac Diarmada of Moylurg, Conchobhar Óg son of Tadhg; Ó Ceallaigh, An Fear Dorcha; the two Ó hEaghra; the two Mac Donnchaidh; and Mac Uilliam a Búrc, Tiobóid son of Bháitéar Ciotach; all of these with all their forces. Their two armies faced each other like that for a long time, and mes- sages passed hither and thither between them, and they were in mutual readiness until they exhausted their provisions and both sides reverted to their houses without having accomplished any signal deed between them but in that manner only.

1597 12. Plundering of Uí Mhaine and Callow district by the army of Ó Domhnaill in this year, and the taking of Athenry; the plundering of the country from Athenry and Ráth Goirgín westwards to Rinn Mhíl and Meadhraighe and the entrance of Galway; and their preys were more numerous than they were able to drive before them in return- ing to their homes.

13. In Spring of this year the Governor of the province of Connacht Sir Conyers Clifford, the Earl of Clanrickard, the Earl of 102 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH Barún Dhún gCoillinn, Barún Innsi Í Cuinn mac Murchadha, Tiobóid na Long, Ó Conchobhair Sligigh, Ó Con- chobhair Ruadh, cona mbaoi do toichiostal ar a ccumas18 o Luimneach co Drobhaois do theacht gan anadh gan oirisiomh co ran- gattar / (‘20’ (272)) eochairimle Eirne, et ro ionnsaighs[e]at Beal Áta Cluaine, a[i]rm an ro gonadh et ro báthadh Barun Innsi I Cuinn. Et battur a bfoslongphort et a gcampa ar Caislean Átha Seanaigh o Satharn co Dia Dardaoin ar gcionn, gurbo héigean dóibh fa dheóidh Casán na gCuradh ar an Éirne os cionn Easa Rúaidh d’ionnsoighe, ar ngabhail na cconaire n-oile dh’Ó nDomhnaill cona slúagh forra, et ro bás ina leanmhain leo co Magh gCéidne. Robdar buidh- each a n-úaisle do rochtain a n-anmann leo dia ttiribh, iarna gcur a n-aitreachus a tturu[i]s. An .15. la do August insin.

14. Níorbo cían iar sin co ttainic Iustis na hÉireann Tomás Lord Boróg et Iarla Chille Daro Henri mac Gearóid a tTír Eoghain co sochruide slúaigh láinmhóir léo, et ni ro ansat co rangadar ar ur na hAbhann Móire. Do chuaidh trá O Domhnaill cona slúagh d’fóirithin Í Néill et do rala aon do laithibh etir na Gaoidhealaibh sin et an slúagh Gall, et ro marbadh sochaidhe do na Gallaibh ar an lathair sin im ardmháor an tsluaigh. Ro gonadh et ro loiteadh an Iuistis et Iarla Cille Dara, et [do] chuaidh an t-Íarla iar cc[e]ileabhradh dhó don Iustis, fo bithin a ghon,19 co Droichiot Átha et ro écc annsin, et rugadh a chorp co Cill Dara co hotharlighe a sinnsior / (‘21’ (273)) dia adhnacal. Ni rainig leis an Iustis dol tar an Iubhar an tan ro écc annsin dia gonaibh. Robdar subhach soimheanmnach […] coigidh Ulad don chur sin. Creachadh I Conchobhair Rúaidh et Machaire Connacht uile le hO nDomhnaill ar gceangal d’O cConchobhair ris an Gouernoir ina dhiaigh, conar fhágaibh boin ó Áth Slisean go Badh[g]na, día ngoirth[e]ar Sliabh Bann do chanamhain.20

1598 15. /(‘25’ (277)) Do cumhdaigheadh baile le druing do (Ghoill-) sluagh21 feacht ríamh ar Abhainn Mhóir don taobh tuaigh d’Ard Macha, et do hathnuaidheadh iar sin nisa daingne leis an Iuistis sin na hEireann tar a ttangamar. Et baoi gairidsun Gall ann do ghnath et 18 ccumus: first u corrected to a 19 fo bithin a ghon in parentheses 20 Remainder of ‘21’ (273) and ‘22’ (274), ‘23’ (275), ‘24’ (276) left blank 21 Ghaoidhslúagh ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 103 Thomond, the Baron of Dunkellin, the Baron of Inchiquin Murchadh son of Murchadh, Tiobóid na Long, Ó Conchobhair Sligigh, Ó Conchobhair Ruadh, with all the forces in their control from Limerick to Drowes, advance without stop or rest until they reached the banks of the Erne, and they made for the Ford of Galloon at which place the Baron of Inchiquin was wounded and drowned. And they were encamped at Ballyshannon Castle from Saturday until the following Thursday and in the end they had to make for Casán na gCuradh on the Erne above Assaroe after Ó Domhnaill had come upon them by travelling the other paths, and they were pursued as far as Magh gCéitne. Their nobles were thankful that they escaped with their lives into their territories, having been made to regret their out- ing. That was on the fifteenth day of August.

14. It was not long after that that the Lord Justice of Ireland Thomas Lord Borough and the Earl of Kildare Henry son of Garrett came to Tír Eoghain with a very large force and they did not stop until they arrived at the bank of the Blackwater. Ó Domhnaill with his army went to assist Ó Néill and an encounter happened on one of the days between the Irish and the English force, and a large number of the English were killed at that spot in the entourage of the chief steward of the force. The Justice and the Earl of Kildare were injured and wounded, and after bidding farewell to the Justice – because of his wounds – the Earl of Kildare went to Drogheda, and he died there, and his body was brought to Kildare to the burial place of his ancestors for interment. The Justice did not manage to proceed beyond Newry but died there of his wounds. The (Irish) of the province of Ulster were cheered and well pleased at that. Ó Conchobhair Ruadh and the entire Plain of Connacht (were) raided by Ó Domhnaill, once Ó Conchobhair had joined with the Governor afterwards, and he left not a cow from Áth Slisean to Badhgna, which is called ‘Sliabh Bann’ in speech.

1598 15. An outpost was established by a company of English forces at an earlier time on the Blackwater on the north side of Armagh, and (it) was renewed afterwards more securely by that Justice of Ireland to whom we have referred. And a garrison of English was there at all 104 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH campa ó Úa Néill orra don taobh amuigh ar na léigeadh prouision no beatha cugtha, co ra battar fa dheóidh i n-uiriosbaidh gach neithe aca sin. Ro cuiridar sgeala co hAth Clíath gurob eigean an baile do thabhairt muna bhfaghdís furtacht. Arna fios do Ghallaibh Duibhlinne do cruinnigeadh sluagh mór leó co mbadar cúig mhile eidir troicheach et marcach, et do hordaighiodh Sir Henri Beging ’na uachtarán uaistibh. Tionolaid(?)22 Ó Néill et O Domhnaill socruide an chúigidh et dronga do Chonnachtaibh ina ndóchum go ro ghabhsat longport eidir an mbaile sin adubhramar et Ard Macha ar cionn na nGall. Do ronadh leó, an oiriod ro battar ag furnaidhe na nGall, dúnclasacha lándoimhne et fothuill talmhan isin conaire nar fheadsat Goill do imgabhail no do sheachna. Tangattar na Goill an ceadna feacht co Droichiott Átha, a[s] sidhe co Traighbhaile, as sin don Iubhar et co hArd Macha23 fa dheoidh. Battar aghaidh i n- aghaidh / (‘26’ (278)) amhlaidh sin go ro cinnsiot Goill na Gaoidhil d’ionnsaighe et dul da n-aimhdheoin gusan ngairiosun. 16. Niro thoirmisgsiot Gaoidhil a tturas iompa co rangattar tar an ccéadchlais bháoi rompa, conadh annsin do ionnsaighsiot a cheile co dioghair dasachtach, co mea[nma]24 móirmheisnigh, co ro bhrisiodar ar na Gallaibh fa dheóidh et ro cuiriodh a n-ár, óir do marbadh da mhíle ar chúig chéad díobh imon nGeinearal Sir Hennri Beaging co n-ocht ccaiptín dég amaille ris. Et a tternó as do Ghallaibh do bhás ina leanmhain aga marbadh co rangattar asteach a nArd Macha. Et ro iadhsat Gaoidhil ina ttimchioll co [ro] ceadaighsiot daibh i cceann trí lá na Goill battar san mbaile réimhráite do thabhairt chughtha co hArd Macha, et imtheacht dáibh dibhlinibh as an tir, et gan aon ni da raibh san mbaile chéadna do mhaithios na tíre do bhreith leo. An .x. la do August do brisiodh an cath sin an Atha Buidhe le Gaoidhealibh an Cuigidh. 17. Baile an Mhotaigh san cCorann do ghabhail le a duthchasaibh dísle féin .i. le Dubh et 25 / (‘27’ (279)) Tumultach Óg, da mhac Cathail Óig Mic Donnchaidh, ar Ghallaibh, et be(i)th26 don bhaile sin a n-urlaimh Gall trí bliadhna [dég] co September na bliadhna so, et O Domhnaill do cheannach an bhaile fa dheoigh ar ceithre chéd púnta et ar thrí chéd bó. Tug O Dochartaigh 22 tionol followed by dotted stroke 23 Final a erased 24 mea followed by space for three letters 25 Letters u in ras. (catchword) 26 beath ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 105 times, and Ó Néill kept an encampment against them on the outer side so that he might not allow provisions or sustenance to reach them, with the result that in the end they wanted for all those things. They sent word to Dublin that it was necessary to surrender the post unless they received help. Once the English of Dublin knew this a large force was assembled by them of up to five thousand of both foot and horse, and Sir Henry Bagenal was ordered to have charge of them. Ó Néill and Ó Domhnaill gathered the forces of the province and companies of Connachtmen towards them and they pitched camp between the outpost we mentioned and Armagh to oppose the English. Very deep trenched fortifications and earthen hollows were dug by those of them who were awaiting the English in the path that the English could not circumvent or avoid. The English came first to Drogheda, from there to Dundalk, from there to Newry and finally to Armagh. They were face to face thus until the English decided to approach the Irish and to go towards the garrison despite them.

16. The Irish did not impede their advance until they crossed the first trench that was before them, and it was then they attacked each other fiercely and bravely with a spirit of great courage and they van- quished the English in the end and slaughtered them, for two thou- sand and five hundred of them were killed in company of the General Sir Henry Bagenal and eighteen captains along with him. And those of the English who escaped continued to be pursued and killed until they arrived in Armagh. And the Irish encircled them and after three days they allowed the English who were in the aforesaid outpost to be brought to them at Armagh, and both (groups) were to depart the country and not to bring with them any part of the wealth of the country that they had in that oupost. On the tenth day of August that battle of the Yellow Ford was won by the Irish of the province.

17. Ballymote in Corran was captured by its own native inheritors, that is Cathal Dubh and Tomaltach Óg, the two sons of Cathal Óg Mac Donnchaidh, from the English. And that place had been in English hands for thirteen years up until September of this year, and Ó Domhnaill bought it in the end for four hundred pounds and three 106 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH Seaán Óg náoi bhfithchitt ponta don airgiott sin do congnam d’O Domhnaill dochum an bhaile do cheannach co sio(r)raidhe.27 Ba isin mbaile sin as faide do baoi Ó Domhnaill ’na comhnaidhe an[n] o sin amach, an ccéin ra ba beó in Éirinn é. 18. Slóigheadh lá hÚa nDomhnaill ó Baile an Mhota[i]gh a meadhón28 Foghmhair na bliadhna so, et ní ro hanadh leis co rainig Cill Colgan i cCl(oi)nn29 Rioca[i]rd, et do léig sgáoileadh da sgeimh- ioltaibh imon tír ’na timchioll tre medhón Chloinne Rioca[i]rd. Ba don chur sin do marbadh le cuid don tslúagh do chúaidh [co] D(ú)n30 Gúaire Toirrdhealbach Buidhe et Brian, da mhac Rossa mic Úaithne mic Maoileachloinn (Í)31 Lochloinn. Et do gabadh le Maghnas mac I Domhnaill Mac Hiobaird ó Dhisert <Í> Cheallaigh .i. Uilliam mac Uillic Rúaidh mhic Uillic Óig. Ro lomairgeadh an tír leó et tugsatt creacha troma toirteamhla et eadála aidhbhle gan troid gan tachar go Baile an Mhotaigh. / (‘28’ (280)) Ni bhfuil i ccuimhne oiris no an[n]alaigh co ro c[ru]innighiodh cud- ruma do na creachaibh sin co Baile an Mhotaigh co sin, ó ro cum- daigheadh e le Gearaltachaibh gusan tan sin. 1599 19. Slóigheadh do tionoladh le hÚa nDomhnaill Aodh Rúadh cco ttoicheastal Cené[i]l gConaill et Fear Monach uile, et cco tto- icheastal ina mbaoi do Connochtaibh ’na gcomhrannaibh cogaidh aige, co rangattar o thus co Baile an Mótaigh. As íad na Connachtuigh tangattar annsin mac Í Rúairc .i. Tadhg mac Bríain na Murtha, O Conchobhair Ruadh Aod mac Toirrdhealbaigh Ruaidh mic Taidhg Bhuidhe, O Ceallaigh Fear Dorc[h]a mac Ceallaigh, Mac Diarmada Muighe Luirg Conchobhar mac Taidhg mic Eoghain, Mac Uilliam [a] Burc Tioboid mac Baiteir Chiotaig, O Dubhda Thíre Fiachrac[h] Tadg mac Taidhg Ríabaigh, Mac Donnchaidh an Corainn (Rudhraighe)32 mac Aodh[a], Mac Donnchaidh Tíre hOilealla Muirgheas Caoch mac Taidhg, et O hEadhra Feidhlim mac Conchaisil.

27 siodhraidhe 28 méadhón 29 cclann 30 don 31 mic 32 Ruaidhrighe ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 107 hundred cows. Ó Dochartaigh Seaán Óg gave one hundred and eighty pounds of that money as a help to Ó Domhnaill towards purchase of the place permanently. It was in that place that Ó Domhnaill resided for the longest time, while he was alive in Ireland after that.

18. A hosting (was made) by Ó Domhnaill from Ballymote in September of this year, and he did not pause until he reached Kilcolgan in Clanrickard, and he sent a scattering of his raiders about the country around him through the middle of Clanrickard. It was on that occasion that Toirrdhealbhach Buidhe and Brian, the two sons of Rosa son of Uaithne son of Maoileachlainn Ó Lochlainn, were killed by part of the force which went to Dún Guaire. And Mac Hiobaird from Díseart Ceallaigh, i.e. Uilliam son of Uilleag Ruadh son of Uilleag Óg, was captured by Maghnas son of Ó Domhnaill. The countryside was razed by them and they took heavy and copious preys and huge rewards without fight or encounter to Ballymote. No history or annal records that the equal of those preys was (ever) gath- ered to Ballymote up to then from its establishment by the Fitzgeralds until that time.

1599 19. A hosting was assembled by Ó Domhnaill with the muster of all Ceinéal gConaill and Fir Mhanach and the muster of all those from Connacht who were his war allies, and they arrived at first at Ballymote. The Connachtmen who came thither were the son of Ó Ruairc, i.e. Tadhg son of Brian na Múrrtha; Ó Conchobhair Ruadh, Aodh son of Toirrdhealbhach Ruadh son of Tadhg Buidhe; Ó Ceallaigh, Fear Dorcha son of Ceallach; Mac Diarmada of Moylurg, Conchobhar son of Tadhg son of Eoghan; Mac Uilliam a Búrc, Tiobóid son of Bháitéar Ciotach; Ó Dubhda of Tireragh, Tadhg son of Tadhg Riabhach; Mac Donnchaidh of Corran, Rudhraighe son of Aodh; Mac Donnchaidh of Tirerrill, Muirgheas Caoch son of Tadhg; and Ó hEaghra, Feidhlim son of Cú Chaisil. 108 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH 20. O rangattar [na] maithe sin co haon ionadh gusan mbaile r[é]imhráite, asi comhairle do cinn O Domhnaill slúagh do léi- gion úadh a Rann Mic Uilliam um Mac / (‘29’ (281)) Uilliam féin et um Níall Garbh mac Cuinn Ui Dhomhnaill, et e fein gus[an] gcuid oile don tslúagh do dul co Tuadhmhumain. Iomthusa Mic Uilliam et Neill Gairbh cona sochruide ni ro hanadh leo co ran- gattar Oilen Leathardain, et ro tríalladh an baile do cosnamh orra, et nior tharbha don lucht ro thriall, oir do lingiodar ar an mbaile as gach aird orra et do marbadh ocht bfir décc do maitibh Cloinne Giobún don chur sin co ndruing oile cenmothát, et do creachsat a mbaoi do neamhrannaib aca san tír ina ttiomchioll an ccéin do bhaoí Ó Domhnaill gusan tslúagh oile a tTúadmumhain.

21. Dala I Domhnaill cona sluagh ni haitriostar a sgeala co ran- gadar ’na n-uidedhibh imtheachta gusan Ruaidhbe(i)thigh33 eidir Cill Colgan et Ard Rathain, et gabhaid longphort im tra[th]nóna isin ionadh sin et do ghabhattar ag eadromadh a lóin, cuid de arna thabairt ó thuathaibh Toraighe a ttúaisgeart et araill a hInis Eogain, et bhói cuid d’fíon na Spáine aga dháil ar na húaislibh, et ro codail- siot iaromh go meadhon oidhche .

22. Ro furail O Domhnaill iaromh eirge gan iomfuireach an .17. lá do mhí Feabhra, et ro eirighsiot a gceadóir et gluaisid co taoi taoithenach i gceann tseada et imtheachta / (‘30’ (282)) tre ródaibh raondírghe an tire co rangattar a much na maidne isin ceann toir do Choill O bFlannchadha do triochad céd Ceineóil bFearmhaic i tTuadhmumhain. O ráinig dh’O nDomhnaill annsin a sgeimhiolta <ó> do sgáoileadh, do léig drong da míledh[a]ibh troic[h]each um Tadg O Rúairc [et] um Mac Suibhne mBaghuineach i mBoirinn, a n-oireas elóidh creach Tuadhmumhan tairis fo dithreabaib na daingionBhoirne. Do léig drong n-oile do taoibh theas do Bhaile Í Ogáin, et do Tulaigh I Deaghaidh et Baile ê Griobhtha, et do cuartaighsiot annsin co Druim Fionnghlaisi et co Coraigh (Fh)inne34 et co Cill Ingene Baoi[th] i gcomhdail ê Dhomhnaill. Et iar sgáoileadh a sgeimhiolta amhlaidh sin do chuaidh féin et tromtsluagh ina fhochair tré lár Choill Ó bhFlannchadha et tré Bhealach an35 (Fhiodhfhail)36 , [et]

33 Ruaidhbeathaigh 34 coraighsinne 35 an] n in ras. 36 Fhiodhfhail, B p. 202 l. 27] Mhuighre MS (see note) ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 109 20. When those nobles came to one location to the aforesaid place the plan Ó Domhnaill decided upon was to send a force from there into Rann Mhic Uilliam under Mac Uilliam himself, and under Niall Garbh son of Conn Ó Domhnaill, and he himself with the remaining portion of the forces was to go to Thomond. As for Mac Uilliam and Niall Garbh with their forces, they did not pause until they arrived at Oiléan Leathardáin and an attempt was made to defend the place against them, and it was of no benefit to those who tried because they assailed them in the town from every side. And eighteen nobles of Clann Giobún were killed on that occasion together with others besides, and they plundered all their enemies in the country about them during the time that Ó Domhnaill was in Thomond with the other forces.

21. As for Ó Domhnaill and his party, no account of their affairs is related until they arrived in their roving journeyings at Ruaidh- bheathach between Kilcolgan and Ard Rathain, and they make camp at evening in that place, and they began consuming their provisions, part of these having been brought from the regions of Tory in the north and another part from Inishowen. And some Spanish wine was given to the nobles and they slept afterwards until midnight.

22. Ó Domhnaill then gave the command to rise promptly on the seventeenth day of the month of February, and they rose at once and proceed to advance and to move quietly and silently through the straight pathways of the country, and they arrived in the early morn- ing at the eastern end of Coill Ó bhFlannchadha in the division of Ceinéal bhFearmaic in Thomond. Once Ó Domhnaill was then able to dispatch his raiders, he sent a company of his footsoldiers under Tadhg Ó Ruairc and Mac Suibhne Baghuineach to Burren as a means of escape for the preys of Thomond past him through the wilder- nesses of the well-fortified Burren. He sent another company south- wards by Baile Uí Ógáin and Tulach Uí Dheadhaidh and Baile Uí Ghríofa, and they made a circuit there as far as Druim Fionnghlaise and Corofin and Kilnaboy in company with Ó Domhnaill. And hav- ing sent out his raiders thus he himself and a large force with him passed through the middle of Coill Ó bhFlannchadha and through 110 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH as sin co Cill Ingine Baoith a n-uachtar Dal cCais. Do rada [chuicce] creacha Ceinéil bFearmaic uile, co mor mor on Dísirt co Gleann Coluim Cille et co Tul[a]igh [Cumann],37 (ó)38 Clúain Sailcernaigh co Léim in Eich.39 Boi tra Ó Domhnaill an oidhche sin a gCill Ingine Baoith, et ni rainig le Tadhg Ó Rúairc no le Mac Suibne a ccreacha / (‘31’ (283)) do thabairt leó mar a raibh O Domhnaill an oidhche sin.

23. Ro eirigh O Domhnaill a much do ló et tug aghaidh ar triochad céad Chorca Modruadh co ráinic Cill Fionnabrach, et do léig sgaoileadh da sgéimhioltadhaibh budh dheas co h(E)ighnigh40 fan mBréntir bhFearmacaigh et cCorcamaigh, co dorus Innsi Dimáin, co Cill Easpuig Lonáin, co Baile Pha[i]din, et tar a n-ais soir co Cill Fionnabrach, mar a raibhe O Domhnaill. Ódcon[na]irc O Domhnaill gach cnoc et tulach da raibh ’na ttimchioll ar na bhfolach do crodh et do chreachaibh, co nárbo léir an talamh tre(o)ta41 ar a líonmhaire, do cinn tiompodh ar a n-ais arna marach tre beilg[h]ibh bao[gh]lacha na Boirne benngairbhe. Et ar n-eirge dho do gluais cona sluaghaibh et co[na] creachaibh i seidsligtibh na - Bhoirne soir co rangattar gusan Rubha i n-iarthur Ó bhFiachrach Aighne. Anaid ann in oidhche sin, et ar n-eirge doibh arna mharach tiagaid tría uachtar Chloinn[e] Riocaird, et níor hanadh leó co ran- gadar dorus Baile Átha an Rígh, et as sin co leathimioll Ó Maine,42 bail a ttarla Mac Uilliam et Níall Garbh O Domnaill cona sochraide et cona ccreachaibh dóibh. Do chúaidh gach aon díobh da ttighthibh co seadach somaoineach et co meanmnach moraigiontach, et do chuaidh Ó Domhnaill co Baile an Mhotaigh. /(‘32’ (284)) Boisiomh tra ’na comhnaidhe isin mbaile sin o deireadh Feabra go medhon Samhraidh, et rangattar teachta on Spáin d’fios na [n]Gaoidheal i mí Iún et long leo ina raibhe arm da mhíle fear, et do rannadh i ndibh leithibh eidir O Neill et [O]43 Domnaill, et amlaidh do ran[n]dis gach aisgidh da ttigeadh cugta on Spáin.

37 Cumann, B p. 202 l. 31] space left for approximately 9 letters in MS 38 im 39 Remaining line space left blank 40 hAighnigh 41 treotha B p. 204 l. 27] trecta MS 42 máine 43 Space for one letter ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 111 Rockforest, and from there to Kilnaboy in upper Dál gCais. All the preys of Ceinéal bhFearmaic were brought to him, especially from Díseart to Gleann Cholaim Cille and to Tulach Cumann, from Cluain Sailchearnaigh to Léim an Eich. Ó Domhnaill passed that night in Kilnaboy, and Tadhg Ó Ruairc and Mac Suibhne failed to take their preys to where Ó Domhnaill was that night.

23. Ó Domhnaill arose at an early hour of the day and set out towards the division of Corcomroe until he reached Kilfenora, and he sent out a scattering of his raiders southwards to Eidhneach, Bréintír Fearmacaigh, and to Corcamaigh, to the entrance of Ennistymon (and) to Cill Easpaig Lonáin, to Baile Pháidín, and back again eastwards to Kilfenora where Ó Domhnaill was. When Ó Domhnaill saw every hill and mound that was round about them hid- den from view with cattle and preys so that the land was not to be seen for them, because of their number, he decided to turn back the next day through the perilous routes of the rough-peaked Burren. And after rising he proceeded with his hosts and his takings along the travel-routes of old Burren eastwards until they arrived at Roo in the eastern part of Uí Fhiachrach Aidhne. They pass the night there and after rising the following morning they advance through upper Clanrickard, and they did not stop until they reached the entrance of Athenry, and from there to the border of Uí Mhaine, at which place Mac Uilliam and Niall Garbh Ó Domhnaill met them with their com- panies and their preys. All of them went to their homes with wealth and riches and with courage and high spirits, and Ó Domhnaill went to Ballymote. He then resided in that place from the end of February to June. And emissaries from Spain came to meet the Irish in the month of June, and they had a ship in which were two thousand men and these were divided in two between Ó Néill and Ó Domhnaill, and that is the manner in which they used to share every benefit that used to come to them from Spain. 112 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH 24. Tainicc tra O Conchobhair Sligigh Donnchadh mac Cathail Óig o Saxaibh i n(Errach)44 na bliadhna so reamhain[n] et bhoi sidhe a bhfocha[i]r Iarla (of) Es[s]ex45 táinig i nÉirinn am Bealtoine na bli- adhna so, et ro furail an tIarla ar Presidens et ar Governóir Coigidh Connocht Sir Coneus Cliffiord et ar a mboi fo comhachtaibh na Banríogan o Luimneach co Drobhaois O Concobhair do cur i mbaile Sligigh, et a fhágbhail co diothoghlaidhe ann, d’aimdheóin I Domhnaill et Gaoideal archeana. [Ro] furail mur an gcéadna [ar] Tioboid na Long mac Rusdaird an Iarainn et Murchadh na Maor mac Domhnaill an Cogaidh ê Flaithbheartaigh et ar eirghe amach na Gaillmhe teacht i loingios o Gaillimh co Sligeach do chuid- iu(gh)adh46 gach neithe da ndubhramar. / (‘33’ (285)) Tainig tra O Conchobhair ríasna toicheastlaibh sin don tír et ru(g)47 creachfuadan bhó ó mhuintir I Domhnaill asteach co caisléan Culmhaine, óir ni raibhe énbhaile aige i gcondae Sligigh do coiseonadh ar O nDomnaill é ach an caisléan sin amháin. Ar ccluinsin na sgeal sin dh’O Domhnaill ni derno anadh na oiriosamh co rainig Culmhuine. Et do ghabh ag iomsuighe an bhaile ar ó cConchobha[i]r, et do geall nach sgarfadh ris co ttugadh Ó Conchobair as da dheóin nó da aimdheoin. Et ro ghabh agá dúr- coimhéad as [a] haithle do ló et d’oidhche ar na healochadh Ó Conchobhair tairsibh amach. Ro clos ceana48 fo Eirinn O Concobair d[o] beith san aircsin ag Ó nDomhnaill, et as moide do deiffrigseat na toicheasda[i]l rémhráite da fhurtacht ag cluinsin a beith amhlaidh sin. Tionólaidh (?) an Gobhernóir ó thús a sochraide co Ros Comáin, ocht mbratacha .xx. a líon, et níor hanadh leó co rangattar co Mainistir na Búille. Táinig bhéos Tiobóid na Long et Murchadh na Maor gusan loingios réimhráite co rángattar a n-iomdomhain an chúain don taobh thíar do Shligech.49

25. O do chluin O Domhnaill na sgeal[a] sin uile da n-ionnsaidhe do fhagaibh Niall O Domnaill co socraide ’na fhochair isin iomsuidhe ar O gConchobhair et do chuir drong / (‘34’ (286)) oile re hucht an loingis [tar] a ttangamar ar na leigthi i ttír íad

44 nErrach, B p. 212 l. 9] eir with double line above r (i.e. eirinn (?)) MS 45 of Essex, B p. 212 l. 9-10] louesex MS 46 cuidiubhadh 47 rut 48 .c.na (i.e. *céadna?) 49 Cf. frisan Sliggech aníar, B p. 218 l. 11 ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 113 24. Ó Conchobhair Sligigh Donnchadh son of Cathal Óg came from England in Spring of the year before this and he was with the Earl of Essex who came to Ireland in May of this year. And the Earl commanded the President and the Governor of the province of Connacht Sir Conyers Clifford and all those under the power of the Queen from Limerick to Drowes to install Ó Conchobhair in the town of Sligo and to leave him there impregnably in spite of Ó Domhnaill and the other Irish. Likewise he commanded Tiobóid na Long son of Risdeard an Iarainn and Murchadh na Maor son of Domhnall an Chogaidh Ó Flaithbheartaigh and the muster of Galway to come in a fleet from Galway to Sligo to assist in all that we have mentioned. Ó Conchobhair then came in advance of those forces to the coun- try and carried off a prey of cattle from Ó Domhnaill’s people to the castle of Collooney, because there was no single place in the county Sligo that would protect him from Ó Domhnaill but that castle only. On hearing those tidings Ó Domhnaill made no pause or rest until he reached Collooney. And he began to put Ó Conchobhair to siege in the castle and he vowed that he would not depart from there until he took Ó Conchobhair out of it voluntarily or involuntarily. And he set about closely watching it thereafter by day and night so that Ó Conchobhair would not escape out of it past them. It was heard all around Ireland that Ó Conchobhair was put in those straits by Ó Domhnaill, and all the more did those musterings already mentioned hasten to help him on hearing that that was his sit- uation. The Governor gathers their forces to from the start, twenty-eight standards in number, and they did not pause until they reached the monastery of Boyle. Tiobóid na Long and Murchadh na Maor came also with the aforesaid fleet and they arrived in the deepest part of the bay to the west of Sligo.

25. When Ó Domhnaill heard all those tidings of their attack he left Niall Ó Domhnaill along with a force to besiege Ó Conchobhair and he dispatched another party to the fleet of which we have 114 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH d’aghmilleadh an tire. Do cúaidh féin co Coirrslíabh co ttiugh an tslúaigh ’na fhochair, et ro ghabh longport ag Beal [a]n Atha Fada. Bhaoi bheós O Rúairc i bhfoslongphort ar le(i)th50 don taobh thoir do Co[i]rrsliabh. Iar mbeith don Gobernóir cona slúagh frí ré seachtmhaine ag bagar gach laoi teacht tresan mBealach mBuidhe d’aimhdheóin I Domhnaill do geall co mbiadh oidhche ’na longphort arna bhúain de et sraonadh fair. Ro thionsgain an gealladh sin do comhall, óir do tríall ón Mainistir an 15 August. Et do con- cattar an lucht faircsi bhoí ó Ua nDomhnaill ar mul[l]ach an tsleibe íad ag mallasgnamh da n-ionnsaidhe, et [ro] cu[i]rsiot sgeala gan fuireach d’ionnsaidhe I Dhomhnaill. Ro furailsiomh fo [ced]oir51 ar a mhilidhibh troicheach et ar a aos diuraice asgnamh roimhe amhail as déine ro feadsat do dheabaidh (friú)52 et dia n-iomfostadh, cco ttia siomh co ttothacht et co ttrom an tsluaigh ’na leanmhain do cath friú. Tiagaid iaromh et do sgaoils[e]at co heisriata eadh imchían o [a]roile, aga bfroisdiuracadh co fuileach fobhartach a gonnaighibh gleesoibne gear[r]adhairc et gaoidhibh moraladh, aga ttim- celladh da ndib leitibh, co ro marbadh et ro muidhiodhadh sochaidhe móra dona Gallaibh, / (‘35’ (287)) re bheith n-athgoirid, ar a dhlús et ar a dhaingne, innille do bhattar, uair as lugha tiagdís diu- raice na nGaoidhiol fo lár no fo iomroll inaid a ndiuraictesiomh, co ro sraonadh forra iar ttrasccairt an Goibernóir eatorra, arna ghuin dona diubhracibh adubhramar. Et do bhás ina leanmhain aga leagadh et aga marbhadh co riachtadar tar a n-ais co Mainistir or trialladar i ttús laoi. Tainig tra O Ruairc ar ccluinsin na troda co hionadh in iomairg, et an do battar na Goill aga bfoghbha[dh] et aga n-athmharbhadh ag na Gaoidhealibh as ann do atain O Ruairc an Goibernóir a m[e]asg an ármaigh, et ro furail a dhíchean[n]adh, et do ronnadh an[n]sin, et do impadar53 muinntir I Domhnaill da longportaibh féin an oidhche sin, et ba sáimh ro codailset ar ccur a n-eagla [et] a n-ims- niomha diobh. 26. Do chuaidh tra O Domhnaill cona slúagh ara bharach co cais- léan Culmuine et do ha[i]thriosadh dh’O Conchobhair an Goibernoir do mharbadh et briseadh ar Ghallaibh, et a tterno as an maidhm sin 50 leath 51 Space for approx. 3 letters before oir 52 firú 53 Letters oimpa in ras., abbreviation mark is perhaps one of lenition, not suprascript r ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 115 spoken, so as not to allow them on land in order to pillage the coun- try. He himself went to Coirrshliabh with the bulk of the army and pitched camp at Ballinafad. Besides, Ó Ruairc was encamped sepa- rately on the east side of Coirrshliabh. When the Governor with his army had been for a period of a week threatening each day to come through Bealach Buidhe despite Ó Domhnaill, he vowed that he would be in his camp on a (certain) night, having captured it from him and having defeated him. He began to fulfil that promise, because he set out from the monastery on 15 August. And the scouts which Ó Domhnaill had on the brow of the hill saw them moving slowly to attack them, and they sent word without delay to Ó Domhnaill. He at once commanded his foot-soldiery and his marks- men to advance in front of him as pressingly as they could to battle with them and to halt them, so that he himself might come up after them with the bulk and main body of the army to do battle against them. They come then and they spread out extensively over a wide dis- tance from one another showering them bloodily and aggressively with shot from quick-firing sharp-sighted guns and spears that caused large wounds, surrounding them on two sides, so that large companies of the English were killed and overcome – to be brief, on account of how closely knit, resolute and prepared they were. For fewer of the shots of the Irish hit the ground or went astray than of their shots, so that they were vanquished, after the slaying of the Governor among them, who was wounded by the shots we men- tioned. And they continued to be pursued and brought down and killed until they got back to Mainistir from where they set out at the start of the day. Then Ó Ruairc, having heard the combat, came to the place of the battle, and (in the place) where the English were being despoiled and killed again, Ó Ruairc recognised the Governor there amongst the slaughter and he ordered him to be beheaded. And that was done then, and Ó Domhnaill’s people returned to their own encampments that night and they slept soundly having put aside their fear and worry.

26. Ó Domhnaill went with his army the following day to the castle of Collooney and Ó Conchobhair was told of the killing of the Governor and the defeat of the English, and that those who escaped 116 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH diobh d’iompadh fo mheala co Mainistir tar a n-ais doridhisi. Et níor chreid O Conchobhair an sgeal sin no gur / (‘36’ (288)) tais- mbeanadh an ceann do. Et annsin as dearbh gur thuit socht et dogra fair iar ttuigsin dó go gcai[th]feadh dul fona bhre(i)th54 féin d’O nDomhnaill. Et dob eigion cheana, et as amlaidh do rinne O Domhnaill ris tug síth dhó ann gach coir da ndearna co sin, et tug congnamh gacha ceinéil spreighe et arbha dó docum a thíre d’áit- iughadh co conáigh doridhisi, óir do bhoí sí ’na fásach gusan am sa .1600.

1600 27. Ar scrudadh do comhairle Atha Clíath na ro fhéadsat cosnamh cóigidh Connocht ar O nDomhnaill cona comranntaibh cogaidh, as si comhairle ar ro chinnsiot, tre aslach Iarla Tua[dh]mumhan et êarla Cloinne Riocaird, tarraing do cur ar cobhlach na Banríoghan55 co Saxaibh et [a] tabhairt co Coigeadh Uladh d’fosdadh et d’iomfhuireach na ttighearna réimhráite. Et nior léig an Banrioghan faillighe ar an ni sin óir do ordaighsiot im fhéil Padr[a]ig na bliadhna soin sé mhíle fear cona n-aidhmibh catha archeana do thocht co hEirinn et Sir Henri Dochair do bheith ’na general uaistibh. Tangattar ceno i mí April co hÁth Clíath et ro sheoladar lámh chlí ré hÉirinn / (‘37’ (289)) anoirttúaidh go ruachtsattar i lorg aonloinge co Loch Feabhail, an .10. lá do Mai. do sonradh 1600. Et donid daing[ean] isan Chúil Mhóir et a nDoire iar sin.

28. As eadh do chinn O Domhnaill íaromh Seaan Óg Ó Dochartaigh .i. tigearna Innsi hEoghain et Níall Garbh O Domhnaill co socraide slóigh mhóir ’na bhfochair d’anmhain re hu(cht)56 [et] urbhruinne na nGall co nach leigdís íad as a scoraibh d’aidhmilleadh an tíre. Et as eadh do chinn féin dul do diogail anbhfaladh ar na hiar- ladhaibh tar ttangamar cheana. Do cuir togairm et tionol ar Ghaoidhiolaibh Choigidh Connocht uile o Shuca co Drobhaois et ó Thir Ua nAmhalgadha co Breifne ê Raghallaigh, co mbattar uile lion a ttionóil et a ttoichiostail a mBaile an Mhótaigh. Et gluaisis roimhe iaromh tré Machaire Connocht,57 /(‘39’ (291)) tré Cenél Aodha, tar Slíabh nEchtge, tre Cenél (Dú)ngaile,58 [et] do Cloinn Coiléin 54 bhreath 55 sic 56 hur with stroke above r 57 Remainder of ‘37’ (289) and ‘38’ (290) left blank 58 Anghaile ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 117 from that defeat had turned back to Boyle again. And Ó Conchobhair did not believe that news until the head was shown him. And then silence and dejection fell over him surely, having understood that he would have to surrender to Ó Domhnaill’s own wish. And that he had to do, and what Ó Domhnaill did with him was that he pardoned him all his misdeeds up to then and gave him the help of every kind of wealth and corn to settle his country with people in prosperity again, because it was wasteland up to this time, 1600.

1600 27. When the Council of Dublin determined that they could not defend the province of Connacht against Ó Domhnaill and his war allies, the decision they came to on the urging of the Earl of Thomond and the Earl of Clanrickard was to send to England for the Queen’s navy and to bring it to the province of Ulster in order to halt and delay those lords already mentioned. And the Queen did not hesitate in that matter, because around St Patrick’s Day of that year they ordered six thousand men with their battle equipment besides to come to Ireland and Sir Henry Docwra to take command over them. So they came in the month of April to Dublin and they sailed to the north east keeping Ireland on the port side and arrived following the path of one ship at Lough Foyle on the 10th day of May precisely, 1600. And they fortified themselves in Cúl Mór and in Derry after that.

28. What Ó Domhnaill then decided was that Seaán Óg Ó Dochartaigh, i.e. lord of Inishowen, and Níall Garbh Ó Domhnaill, together with a company of troops, should remain to confront the English so as not to allow them out of their camps to pillage the countryside. And he decided to go himself to avenge their treacheries on the earls of whom we spoke already. He proclaimed a summons and assembly of all the Irish of the province of Connacht from the Suck to Drowes and from Tír Amhalghaidh to Bréifne Uí Raghallaigh so that they all gathered with their full forces and com- panies in Ballymote. And he set out then through Machaire Connacht, through Kinelea across the Aughty mountains, through Ceinéal Dúnghaile and past Clancullen until he crossed the Fergus 118 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH Uachtair, co rainig tar Forgas síar re meadhon laoi Dia Domhnaigh, et do righne comhnaidhe do taoibh thíar do Cluain Ramhada et d’Ini[s]. Et ro loisgeadh Inis leó ach an mainisttir da ttugsat cadhas. Et tarla d’Íarla Tuadhmumhan a bheith an tan sin a gCluain Ramhada cona banda suighdiú[r]dha ina fhochair, et ódc[h]uala monghar an mhórshlúaigh et fogharthorman an lúath- lamhaigh as eadh do roinne imtheacht co hanfolighthe lé bruac[h] (an)59 Forgais cona beagan buighne, co rainig gusan gClár. Ro ionsaighsiot muinntir I Domhnaill an baile re huaill et diomus, gan airiugadh d’O nDomhnaill, et ro guineadh captín togaidhe do muintir I Domhnaill, Tadhg O Buidhghil a comhainm, et Duibhthion O Cleirigh mar an gceadhna. Et arna fhios sin d’O nDomhnaill ro furail an troid do cosg et eirge ó(n)60 mbaile, oir ba daingean diothoglaidhe eisidhe, da mbeith an tIarla gan beith ann ag cosnamh an bhaile. 29. Ro sgaoileadh a sgeimhiolta co fairsing forleathan ’mon tir ’na ttiomchioll, et do cúartaighiodh leó ria n-oidhche o Craig Í Ciordhubhain i n-iochtar na gcoigcrich i ttríuchat na nOiléan go Cathair / (‘40’ (292)) Murcadha a cCorca Baiscin[n] Iarthoir co dorus61 Cille Muire et Cathrach Ruis et (an Magha ind Uibh)62 Brocáin, co dorus Baile Eóin Gobhann i cCorca Modruadh et Boithi Neill a cCenél bhFearmaic. Dob iomdha daoithin duine uasail no tighearna tíre do creachaibh ag buidhin ceathrair nó cúigir do mhuinntir ê Dhomhnaill i tTuadhmhumhain im trá[th]nóna an lá sin. 30. Boi Ó Domhnaill a longpurt an oidhche sin ar bhru (an)63 Forguis don taoibh thiar do Chluain Ramhada. Et ro eirighsiot as a mbélsgathaibh a moch ar maidin Día Lúain et do ghluaisiottar co cobsaigh céimríghin fíartharsna Tuadhmhumhan soirtuaidh gacha ndireach d’oirthior Ua gCormaic, d’orlar Ceineal bFearmaic et co Boirinn, co rangadar im thrathnóno co mainistir Corca Modruadh et co Carcair na gCleireach. Ro ei[r]giodar na slóigh ceadna a n-(u)rthosach64 laoi Dia Mairt, et gér throm a ttoichim et gerbhó (hinmhall)65 a n-imtheachta ar mhéad et líonmhaire a gcreach 59 na 60 óm 61 The words Baile Eoin Gobhann i cCorca Modruadh et follow here, but are expunged 62 An Magha ind Uibh, B p. 254 l. 29] Mangáin MS 63 na 64 núrthosach 65 héininill ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 119 westwards before midday on Sunday, and made halt to the west of Clonroad and Ennis. And Ennis was burned by them except for the monastery which they spared. And the Earl of Thomond happened to be at that time in Clonroad with his band of soldiery, and as he heard the rumble of the large army and the loud report of the quick firing what he did was to set out secretly by the bank of the Fergus with his small force, and reached Clare. Ó Domhnaill’s people attacked the town with haughtiness and arrogantly without Ó Domhnaill’s knowledge, and an expert captain of Ó Domhnaill’s people by the name of Tadhg Ó Baoighill was killed, and Duibhthion Ó Cléirigh likewise. And when Ó Domhnaill learned that he ordered the fighting to stop and the (siege of) the town to be raised, because that was an impregnable fortress (even) if the Earl were not there protecting the place.

29. His raiders were dispersed extensively about the country around them, and before night they made a circuit from Craig Uí Chiardhubháin in the lower part of the territory in the division of the Islands to Cathair Mhurchadha in Corca Baiscinn, to the entrance of Kilmurry and Cathair Ruis and Magh in Uí Bhrocáin, to the entrance of Baile Eóin Ghobhann in Corcomroe and Both Néill in Ceinéal bhFearmaic. There was a plentiful supply of prey for many a gentle- man or lord of a territory brought by groups of four or five of Ó Domhnaill’s people in Thomond at evening on that day.

30. Ó Domhnaill encamped that night on the bank of the Fergus to the west of Clonroad. And they rose out of their open shelter huts early on the morning of Monday, and they set out steadily and slowly, advancing diagonally across Thomond north-eastwards in a straight line through the east side of Uí Chormaic and the plain of Ceinéal bhFearmaic and through Burren, and arrived at evening at the monastery of Corcomroe, and at Carraig na gCléireach. The same forces rose at dawn on Tuesday, and although their march was severe and their travels slow because of the size and number of their 120 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH et a n-éadala archeano, ro fhagaibhsiot beilg[h]e bearnchairge na banBhóirne da n-éis gur ghabhsat fos et comnaidhe ar Chnoc an Gearráin Bháin eidir Chill Colgan et Gaillibh an oidhche sin. Gluaisios ara barach Dia / (‘41’ (293)) Ceadaoin, iar ccur a n-eagla et a n-imsníomha díobh, óir níor shilsiot nach ttiobhradh Iarla Tuadhmumhan tóraigheacht dóibh do dioghail a creachoirgne orra. Et níorbho fada an réim do rug an lá sin, oir robtar scithigh tuirseach iad, iar tteacht tría beilg[h]ibh bealcumhga na Boirne, et ní ro proinnsiot et ni ro chodailsiot [i] saimhe co sin. Gabaid longport i gcomhfocus doibh, et [ni] dearnsat botha no bealsgalán le teas na síne samrata, et gabhaid ag cumbach et ag cnaimhgearradh búar a mbiodhbadh i n-imcian ó [a] n-athardha gurbád sáthach, et do codailsiot a saimhe co maidin.

31. Do eirgiottar na sluaigh as a suantoirchim codalta Dia Dardáoin et ro cheadaigh O Domnaill do Mac Uilliam cona muinntir et don lucht tangattar a hiarthar Connocht imtheacht dia ttighibh, et do leig féin soir gacha ndireach isna conairibh coitchionn[a] co rainic a ndeireadh laoi co Conmaicne Cúile Tolaidh i meadhón an chóigidh, et gabhais longport ann sin co ar bharach. Et a n-eirge an laoi, ro furáil a mhuintir a ccreacha do leigion úatha da ttíribh le a ngiollanradh et lé a lucht díairm, et drong don tslúagh do leigion léo, et do ceadaigh d’O Ruairc Brian Óg cona muintir dol da ttighthibh / (‘42’ (294)) amhail cách. Do thogh O Domhnaill cúig céd láoch et trí chéd marcach d’an- mhain ’na fhochair fein isin longpurt, et da battar annsin ag léigion a sgíth co híarmheadhon laoi. Tiagaid as a haithle tríasan coigeadh soirdheas co dían deinmneach et co taoi tosdadhach do lo et d’oidh- che co rangattar Loch Ríach i muc[h]deadhoil na maidne. Et do léig- siot a sgeimhiolta sgríoblúatha do gach leith díobh, et ro thionoilsiot ina mbaoi do chrodh a gcomhfhogus et tugsat a lórdaoithin do creachaibh leó, co nar cumhaingsiot iomáin nó iomlúadh an ro cruinnigsiot da gach ernnail chea(thr)a66 go haonmhaighin. Tíagaid iarttain tresan ccóigeadh soirthúaidh co bru Suca a(d)haigh67 Domhnaigh, et oirisid ann an oidhche sin go maidin an Lúain. Do chúaidh O Domnaill tar Suca et Machaire Connocht co rainic Buille et ar bharach co Baile an Mhotaigh.

32. Do léig O Domhnaill sgís da slúaghaibh co September ar ccinn 66 cheadhna 67 aghaidh ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 121 preys and takings in general, they left the rocky passes of White Burren behind them and they stopped and rested at Cnoc an Ghearráin Bháin between Kilcolgan and Galway that night. He set out the following day, Wednesday, when they had banished their trepidation and fear, for they did not think that the Earl of Thomond would fail to give chase to them in order to avenge their plundering. And they did not advance far that day for they were worn and tired, having passsed through the narrow-mouthed passes of the Burren, and they did not eat nor sleep soundly up to then. They pitch camp close to hand, and they made neither hut nor tent, such was the heat of the summer weather, and they set about butchering and chopping the bones of the cattle of their enemies far away from their patrimony, so that they were satiated, and they slept soundly until morning.

31. The hosts arose out of their sound sleep on Thursday and Ó Domhnaill allowed Mac Uilliam with his people and those who came from the western parts of Connacht to go to their homes, and he himself set out due eastwards by the ordinary roads and arrived at the end of the day at Conmhaicne Cúile Tolaigh in the centre of the province, and he pitched camp there until the following day. And at daybreak he ordered his people to send their preys away to their territories together with their servants and unarmed people, and to let a portion of the army to go with them, and he permitted Ó Ruairc, Brian Óg, with his people to go to their homes like everyone else. Ó Domhnaill picked five hundred warriors and three hundred horsemen to remain with him in the encampment, and they were there resting until afternoon. They set out afterwards through the province south-eastwards vigorously and hastily and quietly, silently by day and night, until they arrived at Loughrea at dawn of morning. And they sent out their agile marauders on every side of them and they gathered all the cattle that were nearby and they took possession of a great abundance of preys, so that they were not able to drive or move all that they assembled of every sort of stock to one place. They set out later through the province north-eastwards as far as the edge of the on the night of Sunday, and they delay there that night until Monday morning. Ó Domhnaill crossed the Suck and the Plain of Connacht as far as Boyle, and on the next day he came to Ballymote.

32. Ó Domhnaill gave rest to his forces until September following, 122 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH et do chúaidh íaromh re haghaidh Gall Doire et boi re hathaidh a bforbaisi orra et ré a n-ucht, et do bhean áon do laibh isin mí sin os cionn dá chéad each dhíobh, et as e lá sin ro ghoin Aodh mac Aodha Duib Sir Henri Dochair ina eadan. Do tionóil O Domnaill a sluagh a mí so / (‘43’ (295)) October et tríallus doridhisi do creachadh Túadhmhumhan iar bfagbhail Neill I Domhnaill re hucht Gall Doire. Et do chúaidh féin gan imfuireach tar Sligeach siar co Baile an Mhotaigh, et ní rainig leis dol tar(a)is68 sin an tan tainig sgeala ’na ndiaigh Niall Garbh Ó Domnaill do dhol a rann Gall, et míle fear do thabairt leis Ó Dhoire go Lei(t)h(f)ior.69 Iom- paidhios Ó Domhnaill cona slúagh .i. marcshlúagh, et ní ro an lé a sluaghoibh tro[i]ghtheach co rainig fa dhá mhile do Lei(t)bhior,70 et rugsat a slúagh co hadmall air et do ronsat foslongport isan áit ro ordaigh Ó Domhnaill dóibh.71

33. Maghnus O Domhnaill mac Aodha mic Maghnusa do ghoin et do lot le a brathair et lé a cliabhain Niall Garbh O Domhnaill i ttroid Cruacha[i]n Droma Líghin, et a écc a ccionn seachtmuine a nDún na nGall iar n-aithridhe ina peacuigh[ibh] ittir aithribh S. Franséis an 22 d’October et a athair Aod mac Maghnusa d’écc iar sin an seacht- madh lá do Deicember, et a n-adhnacal a ndíaigh aroile co haith- ghearr a n-otharlighe a sinnsior.

34. Do riachtsattar sgeala co hÚa nDomnaill a mís September co ttainig long on Spáin co cuan an Inbhir Mhóir a n-iarthar Éir- ionn. Et / (‘44’ (296)) ar ndol dosam co Tír O bhFiachrach do cuir litir da soighidh aga iarraidh orra teacht leis an ccédghaoith co cúan na g[C]eall mBeag. Ar tteacht di íar sin tainig O Néill co n-úais- libh coigidh Uladh ó Loch Feabail co Boinn et úaisle cóigidh Connocht Ð do neoch bhoi a rann I Domhnaill Ð72 fa tuarusgbail na loinge réimhráite co Dún na nGall, airm a mboi O Domhnaill. Do shilsiot co raibhe ni [ba] mho ar a tturas ina mar do bhoi, óir ni thainig73 cughtha acht se mile punta do congnamh o Rí na Spainne. Do thiongsain Ó Néill et Ó Domhnaill diultadh an airgid, damadh míadh léo a deanamh, acht ceano do rannadh an t-airgiod ar

68 tarris 69 leighsior 70 leigbhior 71 Two lines following left blank 72 do neoch etc. in parentheses 73 sic ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 123 and went then against the English of Derry, and for a time besieged them and confronted them, and on one of the days in that month he took more than two hundred horses from them, and that was the day on which Aodh son of Aodh Dubh wounded Sir Henry Docwra in the forehead. Ó Domhnaill assembled his army in this month of October and set out again to raid Thomond, having left Niall Garbh Ó Domhnaill confronting the English of Derry. And he himself went without delay past Sligo westwards to Ballymote, and he had not got beyond that when news caught up with him that Niall Garbh Ó Domhnaill had gone over to the English side, and took one thousand men from Derry to Lifford. Ó Domhnaill turned back with his army, that is, cavalry, and he did not wait for his infantry, and came to within two miles of Lifford, and his forces caught up with him slowly and they made camp in the place to which Ó Domhnaill commanded them.

33. Maghnus Ó Domhnaill, son of Aodh son of Maghnus, (was) wounded fatally by his kinsman and brother in law Niall Garbh Ó Domhnaill in the skirmish of Drumleene, and died at the end of a week in Donegal having repented his sins among the friars of St Francis on 22 October, and his father Aodh son of Maghnus died after that on the seventh day of December, and they were buried, one shortly after the other, in the tomb of their ancestors.

34. News reached Ó Domhnaill in the month of September that a ship came from Spain to the harbour of Invermore in the west of Ireland. And having himself gone to Tireragh he sent a letter to them asking them to sail with the first fair wind to the harbour of Killybegs. After it arrived Ó Néill came, along with the nobles of the province of Ulster from Lough Foyle to the Boyne and the nobles of the province of Connacht who were allied to Ó Domhnaill, to Donegal, where Ó Domhnaill was, to receive tidings of the aforesaid ship. They thought that there was more on the way to them than there was, as only six thousand pounds came by way of assistance from the King of Spain. Ó Néill and Ó Domhnaill proposed to refuse the money, if they wished to do so (?); however, the money was divided 124 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH dhó .i. leath d’Ó Néill et da chomhrannaibh c(oga)idh,74 et an leath oile ag Ó nDomhnaill et da comhrannaibh féin a gConnachtaibh, et do rannadar na tigherna céadna a ccuid ar a n-úaislibh et ar a maithibh amhai(l)75 ba díor.

35. A n-urthosach na bliadhno so aon do laithibh tugsat Goill Doire um Colonel oirdhearc ro budh uachtarán doibh – Sir Iohn Camberlén a comhainm – ion[n]saidhe aingidhe ainiarmartach ar Ó nDochartaigh Seaan Óg, et do budh fearr do na Gallaibh na ttugdís an ionnsaidhe sin, óir níorbo soirbh deabaidh (r)is76 an tí boi ansin, an gcéin / (‘45’ (297)) do bhói an toice ag congnamh leis et le a tighearna, et do bris[e]adh77 ar Gallaibh et do marbadh a gColonel co ndaoinibh iomdha oile ina fhochair le hÚa nDochar- taigh. Monúar trá ba78 hé sin búaidh et cosgar deighionach Í Dhochar- taigh oir budh gearr íar sin gur ghabh galar écca é, et fúair bás an .27. Ianuar(i) 79 [1601]. Do cuir go romhór na sgeala sin ar Ó nDomhnaill et do chúaidh fo tasg Í Dhochartaigh, et ar ccruinniugadh maithe Dochartach et an tíre uile co haon ionadh ro ghoir Ó Dochartaigh do dearbratha[i]r Seaa[i]n Ó[i]g i bhfiadhn(uise)80 caich i ccoitchinne .i. Feidhlim Óg.

[1601] 36. Níorbó cían iar sin co ttainig litre et sgríbhne ó easpag irisech craibhdheach, arna furailemh air […] duine uasal onorach d’Fionngallaibh, co hO nDomhnaill do tabairt rabaidh dhó co mboí Ó Conchobhair Sligigh .i. Donnchadh aga toirbeart do Ghallaibh, no ag gealladh a marbhtha muna ttisiodh dhe [é] do gabhail dia thoir- beart. Do luidh socht mór air ar leaghadh na litri dho et níor labuir co cían d’aimsir. Et as eadh do rinne iaromh do chuir na litre cédno le druing da lucht dioghraisi agus tair[i]si mar a raibhe Ó Néill da chomhairliugadh ris cread do dheanamh imon ccúis sin. Et ar rochtain na sgeal sin [co] Ó Néill ro cuir air co mór, et as í comhairle do chuir chuige Ó Conchobhair do ghabhail dia ccaomhsadh, cidh

74 cóigidh 75 amhaib 76 ais 77 briosadh 78 sic, altered from budh 79 Ianuar with abbreviation stroke above r 80 bhfiadhnusa ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 125 in two, i.e. one half for Ó Néill and his provincial allies, and the other half for Ó Domhnaill and his own allies in Connacht, and the same lords divided their portions among their nobles and worthies as was fitting.

35. On a day at the beginning of this year the English of Derry under a worthy colonel who was their superior, Sir John Chamberlain by name, made a malevolent ruthless attack on Ó Dochartaigh, Seaán Óg, and it would have been better for the English that they should not make that attack, because it was not easy to join issue with that man as long as fortune was attending him and his lord. And the English were defeated and their colonel was slain, along with many other people who stood with him, by Ó Dochartaigh. Sadly, however, that was Ó Dochartaigh’s last triumph and victory for it was but a short time afterwards that a fatal illness took him and he died on 27 January 1601. Those tidings troubled Ó Domhnaill greatly and he went to visit Ó Dochartaigh, and having gathered the worthies of Uí Dhochartaigh and the whole country to one place he nominated the brother of Seaán Óg as Ó Dochartaigh in the presence of everyone, viz. Feidhlim Óg.

[1601 36. It was not long thereafter that letters and writings came from a reliable devout bishop, at the behest of (?) an honourable noble per- son of Fingal, to Ó Domhnaill with a warning that Ó Conchobhair Sligigh, Donnchadh, was (offering to) deliver him to the English or (was) promising to kill him, if he were unable to capture and deliver him. A great silence came over him having read the letter, and he did not speak for a long time. And what he did then was that he for- warded the same letter with a group of his dear and trusted adherents to where Ó Néill was in order to take counsel from him concerning what to do about that issue. And when that news reached Ó Néill it troubled him greatly, and the advice he issued to him was to take Ó Conchobhair captive if he could, even before he should himself be in 126 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH resiú do bhiadh féin san gúasacht a raibhe. Do roinne siomh sin / (‘46’ (298)) úair do gabadh Ó Conchobhair leis et [do] cuireadh da coimhéad co hoilén Locha hIasg(aigh)81 é. 37. Iarla Cloinne Riocaird Uillioc mac Riocaird Saxanaigh d’éag i mís Mai na bliadhno so 1601, et do hoirneadh [a] mac Riocard iona ionadh, et íarna óirneadh, tainig for meanmoin do dioghail a dimiadha ar Ó nDomhnaill do chomhairle an Iusdis Lord Montio(y).82 Et [do] thionóil a raibhe do Ghallaibh a Luimneach, i gCill Moceallóg, i nEas Geibhtine, i nGaillimh, i n-Áth Lúain cona sochraide imailli riú. Ódchúalaidh Ó Domhnaill sin do fhagaibh drungbhuidhne da mhuinntir le hucht [et] urbruinne na nGall et N(éill Ghairbh Í)83 Domhnaill, ar na tiostais d’aidhmhilleadh an tíre. Et do chuaidh féin gusan líon as lia do fhéad co Connochtoibh a n-aghaidh an tslúaigh sin êarla Cloinne Riocaird, et do chuir foraire[dh]a in gach conair in rob omhan leis a rochtain. Dala an Íarla cona sochraide, ódchúala co raibhe O Domhnaill ina furfhoicill amlaidh sin, as i slighe in ro gabh tar Suca tré Machaire Connocht co rainig Oil Finn. Íarna chlos sin d’O nDomhnaill do chuaidh cona slúagh ina dhóchum co ro suigeadh a campa ós comhair an Iarla. Battar athaidh amhlaidh sin et deabhtha dioghbhalacha et iomghuin fu[i]lech fobhartach gacha laoi eatorra, co ro sgithigheadh et co ro tuirsighiodh an têarla cona sochraide fa dheóigh, conadh i comhairle do cinnsiot impudh dhá ttír ’na bfrithing. 38. /(‘47’ (299)) An ccéin bhói O Domhnaill i cConnochtoibh amhlaidh sin fúair Níall Ó Domhnaill co ttangattar gan anad gan oiriosomh tar Bearnas Mór, gur ghabhsat longport a mainistir Dhún na nGall et isin Machaire mBeag allathíar don mhainistir. Arna cluinsin sin d’O nDomhnaill tainig cona sochraide a Cóigeadh Connocht et ba tochradh mor meanman nach baoi féin isin tír an tan tainig Níall go a Gallaibh tar Bearnus, ar ba dóigh leis gan (sl)an84 a mheanman d’faghail re mudhugadh diobh don chur sin, et nach rug orra gan teacht tar slíabh. Ro suidhighiodh a campa a ccomhfhogus na mbailte reimsgriobhtha i mbattar na Goill co nar léig tadhal[l] na tathaidhe dóibh ar fud na tíre da creachadh no da hinreadh in nach leith co mbattar i gcuimhgi mhóir. 81 hIasgnaighe 82 Montion 83 Níall Garbh O 84 man ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 127 the difficulty in which he (formerly) was. He acted accordingly, for Ó Conchobhair was taken prisoner and he placed him under guard on the island of Lough Esk.

37. The Earl of Clanrickard, Uilleag son of Riocard Saxanach, died in the month of May of this year 1601, and his son Riocard was inaugurated in his place, and after his inauguration he determined to avenge his dishonour upon Ó Domhnaill on the advice of the Justice, Lord Mountjoy, and he assembled all the English who were in Limerick, Kilmallock (and) Askeaton, in Galway (and) , with their forces. When Ó Domhnaill heard that, he left companies of his people to oppose the English and Niall Garbh Ó Domhnaill, lest they should come to lay waste the country. And he himself went with as many as he could muster into Connacht to oppose that army of the Earl of Clanrickard, and he sent out scouts along every path by which he feared they would come. As for the Earl with his force, when he heard that Ó Domhnaill was lying in wait for him thus, the route he took was across the Suck through the Plain of Connacht as far as Elphin. When Ó Domhnaill heard that he went with his army towards him and his camp was pitched facing the Earl. They were positioned in that manner for a time, and perilous battles and a bloody, aggressive attack were waged each day between them until the Earl and his forces were finally exhausted and worn, so that the plan they settled on was to return to their country again.

38. All the while that Ó Domhnaill was in Connacht in that man- ner, Niall Ó Domhnaill found he could come (lit. found that they came) without pause or delay across Barnasmore, and they encamped in the monastery of Donegal and at Machaire Beag to the west of the monastery. When Ó Domhnaill heard that, he came with his forces out of the province of Connacht. And it was a cause of great vexation to his mind that he was not himself in the country when Niall came through Barnasmore with his English, because he thought he would not get his full satisfaction of killing them on that occasion, since he did not catch up with them before they came over the mountain. Their camp was pitched close to the places named before in which the English were, in order not to allow them move or roam around the countryside pillaging and overrunning any part of it, so that they were in tight straits. 128 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH 39. Battar tra amhlaidh sin ar gach taobh gusna laithibh deighion- chaibh do mís September. Tarla do teagmhaisi no do cinneamhain eigin i n-eacmaing na ree sin co ndeachaidh teine isna bairillibh púdair battar ag Gallaibh i mainistir Dhú[i]n na nGall go ro lois- geadh an mainistir uile eidir chloich et crann. Arna fhaicsin sin don lucht fairgsi et coimheada bhoi ó O nDomnaill ar na Gallaibh co mbaoi an mainistir aga / (‘48’ (300)) díanlosgadh, ro gabhsat ag fras- diuracadh i n-ubhallmheall lúaidhe et ag prablosgadh pudair do toghairm ê Domhnaill chughtha. Et tainig sidhe cona sluaghoibh fo cheadóir et ro ionnsaighsiot an mhainistir co dioghair dásachtach, et gabhait ag comhchiorrbadh a chéile re ré fada co ro marbadh et co ro creachtnuigheadh sochaidhe eatorra re headh n-athgoirid.

40. O ro airigh Níall Ó Domhnaill an t-eigion i mboi cona Gallaibh ro eal(aigh)85 co hincleit[h]e la hur86 an cúain síar gusan Machaire mBeag. Tug an líon do Ghallaibh do bhoi annsin do chum furtacht muinntire Du[i]n [na] nGall. A n-atconnairc O Domhnaill an coba[i]r sin da rochta[i]n na nGall, et tug da uidh et da aire daingeaninnille múr na mainistreach ag imdhidin na nGall fair, ro choisg an deabaidh ní budh sía. Acht cheano do marbadh daoine iomdha eatorra ar gach taoibh, et ro budh mó do marbadh o na Gallaibh inás o na Gaoidhiolaibh. Do marbadh ó O nDomhnaill Caiptín Tadhg mac Cathail Óig Mic Díarmoda d’úaislibh Cloinne Í Maoilrua[nai]d a Muigh Luirg co ndaoinibh iomdha oile. Do marbadh do[n] le(i)th87 oile Conn Óg mac Cuinn, dearbrathair Néill Í Domhnaill; ceann agha et iorghaile eisidhe et do ba díol égcaoine ina thír muna ttuitiodh dona ttoirchar.* / (‘49’/ 301) Do thuiteattar fós trí chéd cenmothátsomh, eittir mar- badh et losgadh, do Gallaibh don chur sin. Boi Ó Domhnaill amhlaidh sin re haghaidh Néill et na nGall ó dheireadh mís September co criochnughadh October gan gníomh oirdheirc do ghniomh eatorra acht an méid sin amail [a]dubhramar.

41. Tainig trá sgeala co hÚa nDomhnaill i cceann na rée sin co ttainig cobhlach Spainneach d’foirighthin Gaoidhiol Eirionn o Rígh na Spaine, et ro ghabhsatt cuan i cCionn Saile et Don Iohn de Agolo ’na general úaistibh. Tainig meanma mór et meisneach i nGaoidh- iolaibh de sin, gén go raibhe adhbhar aca dia bfeasdaois féin é. Ansin

85 Second a follows dotted stroke of abbreviation attached to l 86 húr 87 leath ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 129 39. They continued in that manner on both sides until the last days of the month of September. It happened by chance or some accident towards the end of that time that fire broke out in the powder kegs which the English had in the monastery of Donegal and the entire monastery was burnt, both stone and wood. When the guards and watchmen Ó Domhnaill had to observe the English saw that, namely that the monastery was burning fiercely, they began showering their leaden balls and exploding their powder in order to summon Ó Domhnaill to them. And he came with his forces at once and they attacked the monastery vehemently and valiantly, and they set about hacking each other for a long time so that between them a multitude was killed and wounded in a short time.

40. When Niall Ó Domhnaill saw the straits in which he was with his English he set out covertly and in secret, keeping to the edge of the bay, westwards as far as Machaire Beag. He brought all the English who were there to assist the Donegal people. When Ó Domhnaill saw that that aid reached the English, and taking account of the fortifications of the walls of the monastery protecting the English against him, he ordered a stop to fighting any longer. However, many people were killed between them on both sides and more English were killed than Irish. On Ó Domhnaill’s side Captain Tadhg son of Cathal Óg Mac Diarmada of the nobles of Clann Uí Mhaolruanaidh from Moylurg was killed with many others besides. On the opposing side Conn Óg son of Conn, brother of Niall Ó Domhnaill was killed. He was a leader in battle and combat and he merited to be lamented in his country if (only) he fell of all that fell (?). Also three hundred English fell besides them, whether through killing or burning on that occasion. Ó Domhnaill was thus engaged in confronting Niall and the English from the end of the month of September to the end of October, and no signal feat was performed between them but only that much as we said.

41. News came to Ó Domhnaill at the end of that period that a Spanish fleet came to assist the of Ireland from the King of Spain, and they entered the harbour at Kinsale with Don Iohn de Agolo as their commander. The Irish took great heart and courage from that, although they did not have cause if only they themselves 130 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH ro léirthionoladh i mboi do Gallaibh et do Gaoidhiolaibh [s]an taobh theas d’Eirinn, da raba do thaobh na Banrioghan, cugtha imon Iustis, um Presedens da Choigeadh Mumhan et um Iarla Cloinne Rioca[i]rd. Táinig fos Íarla Tuadhmumhan a Saxoibh co cceithre mhile fear leis ón mBanrioghuin do congnamh leis an Iuistis, gur cuirsiot sin uile teannta mór et cuimhge ar na Spainneachaibh.

42. Iomthus Í Néill et I Dhomhnaill cona ccomhranntoibh cogaidh, do ba náir leó na Spainigh do bheith san airc sin gan dul da bfurtacht, et ni haithristear i n-imtheachta ma seach ann so co ccom- rangattar/ (‘50’ (302)) i n-aon ionadh ag Bandain a gCairbreach- aibh, et badur88 annsidhe a bfochair a cheile, co ttairnic leo sollamain na Nodlog do chriochnugadh. Et tangattar litre cuca o Don Iohn de Agolo et o na Spaineachaibh aga aslach orra campa an Iustís bhoí alla muidh díobh d’ionnsaidhe, et do geallattar somh a bfuabairt don taobh oile san ccuma ceadhna. Ro thríallattar somh sin do dhéanamh, et dob fhearr doibh féin na deandais, oir do brisiodh co hadhnair orra et fó mheala et fó aithis, et do sgar i ccuid d’Eirinn ríu ón ló sin alle, gen gorbo mór do daoinibh dob inairi(mh)89 do marbadh uatha isin maidhm sin. An treas lá do Ianuari do meabadh an mhaidhm sin Cinn Saile 1602.

[1602] 43. O Domhnaill do ghabhail fulaing et dásacht tríasan maidhm sain do mheabhsain air féin et ar Ó Néill et ar Gao[i]dhiolaibh arceano. Et ro thuing an g[c]éin [do] budh bé(o)90 na ra(ch)adh91 i ccath nó i cclíathaibh araon leis an druing ar ar sraoineadh don cur sin. As eadh92 ro cinn Eire d’fagbhail et dul don Spainn. Et as iad do thogh ina caoimhtheacht, cenmothát druing da thairisibh féin, Remonn a Burc mac Seaain na Seamor et Caiptín Aodh Mos mac Ribeird. Et do chuaidh i loing i gCúan an Caisléin an seiseadh la Ianuari et do ghabh / (‘51’ (303)) cúan isin Cruinne san Spáin an .14. na miosa ceadhna. Et ar ndol do lath- air an rígh do fiadhaigheadh co honorach é leis, et ro geall do gach athcuinge et gach aisgidh dár íar[r] air, et do gheall armail do chur leis co hEirinn. Ro thochaithsom in aimsir íar sin co Samhradh ar 88 ba dúr 89 inairibh 90 béd 91 radh with dotted stroke adjoining final 92 aséadh (dh added) ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 131 knew it. Then all the English and Irish who were in the southern half of Ireland of those who were of the Queen’s party, were assembled to face them under the Justice, the President of the two provinces of Munster, and under the Earl of Clanrickard. The Earl of Thomond also came from England with four thousand men from the Queen to assist the Justice, and all that placed the Spaniards in great difficulty and straits.

42. As for Ó Néill and Ó Domhnaill and their war allies, they were ashamed that the Spaniards should be in such straits without (them- selves) going to help them, and their journeyings are not related piecemeal here until they arrived together in one place at Bandon in Carbery, and they were together there and contrived to complete the celebration of Christmas. And letters reached them from Iohn de Agolo and the Spaniards asking them to attack the Justice’s camp which was on their outside and they undertook that they would attack them from the other side in the same manner. They attempted to do so, and it would have been better for them not to do so, because they were defeated ignominiously and tragically and disgracefully. And their portion of Ireland was parted from them from that day onwards, although not many people of note were killed of their num- ber in that defeat. That defeat of Kinsale was inflicted on the 3rd day of January 1602.

[1602] 43. Ó Domhnaill was afflicted and became angry because of the defeat that was inflicted upon himself and Ó Néill and the Irish in general. And he vowed that as long as he lived he would not go into battle or conflicts together with those who were defeated on that occasion. What he did was to leave Ireland and go to Spain. And those he chose to accompany him apart from a group of his own trusted confidants were Réamann a Búrc son of Seaán na Seamar, and Captain Aodh Mos son of Ribeard. And he boarded a ship at Castlehaven on the 6th day of January and reached harbour in Corunna in Spain on the 14th of the same month. And having pre- sented himself to the King he was welcomed by him with honour, and he promised to grant him every request and gift he asked for, and promised to send an army with him to Ireland. He spent the time after that until the Summer following in awaiting the army which 132 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH ccionn ar iomfhuireach leis an armail do gealladh dhó le rígh na Spainne. Et do thríall dol don Rígh co rainic co Simancas, .i. baile eisidhe d(a)93 léig ó Ualladelíd, do chúirt an Rígh. Ba seadh do deonaigh Dia et ro ceadaigh a mís[h]ean et a hecconach, i mis- caith et a mallacht d’ Eirinn et do Ghaoidhiolaibh glanFodhla, gur gabh galar éacca et easláinte oideadha Ó Domhnaill isin mbaile sin. Et bhoi re ré seacht lá ndéag ’na luighe, co n-earbail an .x. la Seiptimber iar n-aithrighe díochra dúthrachtaigh na pheacaighibh, iar ccaithiomh coirp Crist et [a] fhola, et iarna ongadh amhail bá díor. Et do hadhnaiceadh co honorach et co n-airmidin moir i n-Eaccluis St Fran. i Uualladelíd94 i mbaile an rígh.

44. Monúar trá do bo doiligh do sochaidhibh muchorchra an tí theasda annsin, oir níorbo hogh[sh]lan a triocat bliadhan an tan ro ég. Ba heisidhe ceann coinne et comhairle inntleacht et imagallmha urmhóir Gaoidiol Eirionn re sídh nó re cogadh. Airgtheoir95 cog(thach)96 creachach / (‘52’ (304)) coingleac(ach)97 na gcoigcrioch; fear diocurtha dibfeargach, mudaighthe meirleach, morta mac mbeathadh, et riaghtha mac mbáis; fear do dhing a omhan et [a] u[i]reagla ar cách i ccein et a bfogus, et ar nár chuir neach imeaccla eidir; fear nar léig fairbriogh ina iomarcraidh, a diubhairt, no a dhimiadh, gan a aithe et gan a dioghailt fo chédóir. Ba truagh thrá do bhás ag Gaoidhealaibh Eirionn iar n-eag na fiorflatha sin, oir do beansatt ceill da ccabhair o neoch, et do chlaochlaighseat a n-air[r]dheana et a n-aigionta, et tugsat miliotacht ar mílaoch- acht, móirmheanma ar mertnighe, uallcha ar inísle. Ro scaith a ngrain et [a] ngaisged, i ngal et a ngeireteacht, a ccosgar et a gcathbhuaidh, a n-agh et a n-ionnsoighe, íarna oidhidh.

Finis

93 do 94 iuualla.de líd 95 Corrected from arrteoir 96 cogaidh, cf. coccthach, B p. 346 l. 6 97 coingleaca, cf. coingleacach B p. 346 l. 7 ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 133 was promised to him by the King of Spain. And he attempted to go to the King and arrived in Simancas which is a place two leagues dis- tant from Valladolid, the King’s palace. God granted, and her ill-luck and misfortune, her wretchedness, and the curse attending Ireland and the Irish of fair Fódhla allowed that Ó Domhnaill contracted a fatal disease and a mortal illness in that place. And he was for a period of seventeen days on his sick-bed and he died on the 10th day of September, having made sincere and fervent repentance for his sins, and having received the body and blood of Christ, and having been anointed as was fitting. And he was buried with honour and great respect in the church of St Francis in Valladolid in the King’s city.

44. Alas! The premature passing of him who perished there brought sorrow to multitudes, for his thirty years were not yet com- plete when he died. He was the head of support and the counsel of intellect and disputation of the greater number of the Gaels of Ireland, whether in peace or in war. A warlike aggressive plunderer of others’ territories; a banisher of brigands; crusher of evildoers; exalter of the sons of life; and torturer of the sons of death. A man who impressed fear and terror of him upon everyone far and near and on whom no person at all put dread; a man who did not allow tyranny or excess, cheating, nor disrespect to be shown him that he did not repay and avenge it at once. Pitiful indeed was the state of the Gaels of Ireland after the death of that true prince, for they aban- doned hope of receiving aid from anyone, they changed their char- acteristics and their dispositions, and they exchanged military prowess for cowardice, high-mindedness for weakness, pride for ser- vility. Their hatred, bravery, strength, prowess, triumph, victory, ferocity and valour vanished after his death.

The end 134 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH

NOTES

Heading d’airsgealaibh I take the spelling of the MS (‘daird-.’) as a scribal slip, on the grounds that in the context the commonly attested noun airsgéala ‘tidings’ seems more appropriate than a compound aird- sgéla ‘great news’. suim et eifeacht A set phrase. do gabadh The preverb is absent in the manuscript here and in a few places elsewhere (see notes on §§11, 14, 16, 36), but is supplied in accordance with the general usage of the text. 1. B §§4, 9. Aodh Ruadh’s capture, imprisonment, escape and return to prison. The paragraph deals with the events of 1587-91. Aodh Ruadh’s first escape took place in January 1591; see Walsh, Beatha Aodha Ruaidh Uí Dhomhnaill II (hereafter BAR ii) 27-32. le Feidhlim Ó Tuathail The mistaken reading (‘mac’ for Ó) is rectified here in keeping with the account in the source of the role of Féilim Ó Tuathail in surrendering Aodh Ruadh (viz. O rob erdhalta la Félim 7 lia braithribh cách oile dia fhoghbháilsiomh as fair desidh leo iad budhdein dia erghabail 7 a breith gusan ccathraigh for cúlaibh dochum an tSenaidh, B §9 p. 16 l. 27 f.). Cf. BAR ii 28- 9.

2. B §§10, 19. Second escape and return to Tír Chonaill; inaugu- ration. 159(2) The date supplied in the manuscript (‘1591’) is an error, and may have been carried over by the copyist from the preceding paragraph. The record in the text otherwise corresponds to that of the source, viz. Baoisium samhlaidh isin ccarcair chéttna fot na bliadna go deiredh geimhridh doridhisi go hoidhche Nottlacc Stell doshonn- radh anno 1592 (B §10 p. 18, l. 18-20). On the dating of the second escape see further BAR ii 32-8. urmhóir Genitive inflexion (absent in MS) is supplied following usage elsewhere (§44); see, however, note on §7 (et creacha etc.). an treas lá do Shamhradh Cf. B, Ba hisin tres laithe do mhis Mai doshondradh ro gairmed a ghairm fhlatha dhesiomh don chur sin [in marg. 1592] (§19 p. 40 ll. 30-31). Concerning the practice of nam- ing months from the seasons (e.g. Samhradh or tosach Samhraidh ‘May’ etc.) see BAR ii 32 n. 1. ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 135 3. B §31. Battle of the Ford of Galloon. Béal Átha Cúlmhuine* The reference is to events at a ford on the Erne at Galloon, located about half a mile west of Belleek (Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland, ed. O’Donovan (hereafter F), p. 1940 n.; cf. BAR ii 440). The final element of the placename as given in the MS is corrupt and appears to arise from contamination with Cúl Mhuine al. Cúl Maoile Cúlmhaine, i.e. Collooney, Co. Sligo (mentioned below §24 and see n.). The location of the battle is given as Ath Chuile Uain in the corresponding passage in B (p. 64 ll. 11-12) and in the Four Masters as Áth Chúluain (s.a. 1593). On the other hand, the so-called ‘Short Annals of Tír Conaill’ (edited by Walsh, BAR ii 86-97) give it in the form Béal Atha Cluana (ibid. p. 88, item 14, and n.), and a variant of the latter is used in the present text at §13 which records the drowning of the Baron of Inchiquin at the Ford of Galloon in 1597 (Beal Áta Cluaine); with this compare also the form used in the record of the same incident by Philip O’Sullevan Beare, Hist. Cath. Iber. Comp., viz. ‘Beal au Cluoen, os vadi prati’ (cited in F 1940 n.) (misprinted in the edition by Matthew Kelly (1850, p. 203) as ‘Beal antha Cuoin’). The corresponding forms in B and the Four Masters (s.a. 1597) are Ath Cúiluain, Áth Chuiluain, respec- tively. It is unclear which of the attested variant forms Áth Chúil(e) Uain or Béal Átha Cluana should be restored in the present para- graph, if either, as the error may be authorial. an seiseadh lá do October Cf. B, an seisedh la do October do shonnradh (p. 64 l. 13).

4. B §37. Battle of the Ford of the Biscuits. i gcedthosach Foghmhair Cf. B, Hi mí August do rónadh indsin (p. 74 l. 28); regarding the date cf. BAR ii 88 n. (On the nomencla- tures see note on §2 above.)

5. B §§40-50. Plundering of Boyle, the Plain of Connacht and Annaly (Longford); burning of Longford Castle and plundering of Cavan. Ó Domhnaill’s campaign in Connacht in 1595 as reported in B falls into two phases. (1) A first raid by Ó Domhnaill into Magh Aoi (i.e. Machaire Connacht in the present text) took place in March (an treas lá do Márta, B §40 p. 80 l. 8), after which he and his army went to their homes via Muintir Eólais (Leitrim) (cf. B §41 p. 84 l. 3) where they remained until the end of Spring (i.e. April) (occ léigen a scísi go deiredh nearraigh, B §42 p. 84 l. 22). (2) On 18 April Ó 136 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH Domhnaill reassembled his host (B §43 p. 84 l. 29) and again marched into Connacht; a party was sent to attack the garrison housed in the monastery at Boyle where a herd of one hundred milch cows was captured (§43 p. 86 ll. 9-15). Meanwhile Ó Domhnaill with other forces again raided Magh Aoi (sic B §45), after which they encamped in Muintir Eólais (§46 p. 88 l. 8) and celebrated Easter (co ttairnicc leó celeabhradh na Casg ibid. l. 9). On Easter Monday (luan Casg, B §47 p. 88 l. 24) he and his followers raided the two Annalys (an da Anghaile), and on the following day they burned Longford Castle (Longphort Uí Fherghail, B §48 p. 90 l. 3), and four other castles (ceithre caisteoill oile do chaistiallaibh an tíre cén- mothá an Longphort, ibid. l. 24). On leaving Annaly they reached Tullyhaw in Leitrim that night (in adhaigh sin, B §49 p. 90 l. 29), and the following day plundered the Franciscan monastery near Cavan which housed a garrison (ibid. ll 30-33). In a recapitulatory para- graph (B §50) this second phase of the campaign is expressly stated to have been completed in one week and the events are assigned to days of the week as follows (emphasis added):

Nirbhó sádhal suantoirrchimeach do thochaith Aodh Ruadh Ua Domhnaill an tsechtmain sin 7 ba heitirchian o aroile a uidh- edha 7 a imthechta ar ba dia sathairn ro bhensat a mhuinter a mbú do Ghallaibh mainestre na Búille 7 ro airgset Machaire Connacht. Ba dia mairt ar cciund ro chreachloisccset a shlóigh an da Anghaile amail atrubhramor 7 ba dia cédaoin ieromh ro shrethnaighset a shirthe imón cCabhán. (B p. 92 ll 10-14)

Both phases of the campaign have been conflated in the present text, with the raid on Boyle being wrongly assigned to the month of March. The final sentence in the paragraph recalls the opening words of the passage quoted above. ced loilgheach Cf. B, go mbui cétt lulgech leó dia mbethamhnus (p. 86 ll 14-15). Machaire Connocht A modern name for Magh Aoi, located between and Castlerea, Co. Roscommon; cf. F 2195 n., 2250 n. Presidinsi The final vowel seems an error, as the usual form Presidens occurs at §§24, 41; B regularly refers to Sir Richard Bingham as an goibernoir Risderd Biongom (p. 82 et passim). Dia Dardaoin ‘Thursday’; B places the events on the Wednesday (see above). ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 137 6. B §53. Slaying of George Bingham. Seorsa A pronunciation spelling, for which see Quiggin, A dialect of Donegal 117; see Introduction p. 92. cCeann MS ‘ccionn’ represents the usual Ulster pronunciation of nom. sg./gen. pl. of this noun; see Quiggin, A dialect of Donegal 148. a Búrc The prefix of the surname is absent in the MS as also below §§11, 19, but it is given correctly in §43 as passim in B, and hence it is supplied in the edition. Uillic Inflexion supplied following §18. i mí Iún Cf. B, Hi mis Iun doshunradh indsin (p. 96 ll 30-31). 7. B §§55-59. Taking of Castlemore Costello; plundering of Conmhaicne; slaying of Captain Martin; return to Tír Chonaill. Caislean Mór Mic Coisdealbhaigh Correction of the MS error is supplied by the source; cf. B, Caistiall Mór Meic Goisdelbaigh (§55 p. 100 l. 3). For substitution of caisléan in place of the literary term caistiall (B) see also §§8, 24. August Cf. ba hi medhón an mhís August … indsin (B p. 98 l. 28). et creacha Conmaicne The list of places here derives from the following passage in B §56: Ro scaoilset iaram a sceimhealta fá Chonmhaicne fá Mhuintir Murchadha fa leithimeal an Mhachaire Riabhaigh 7 fa Thuaim Da Ghualann coro chroithset an chrioch for gach leth dhíobh ima crodh 7 ima hinnile. (p. 100 ll 21-4) There are anomalies in the adaptation, however. The words leith- imeal an Mhachaire Riabhaigh (‘the border of M. R.’, i.e. Maghery, a place located on the S. E. shores of L. Corrib) is altered in the syn- opsis to leathimiol Úa Maine et an Machaire Riabhach. The inter- polated reference to Í Mhaine (an area that stretched from the northern extremity of L. Ree to include S. Roscommon, the eastern part of Co. Galway, and parts of Clare and Offaly) seems intended to signpost the location of Machaire Riabhach for the reader. For the phrase leathimioll Ó Maine see below §23. But the form of the phrase in the present passage is anomalous since its dependence on the noun creacha ‘preys’ (nom. pl.) means that genitive forms are to be expected in place of MS leathimiol and Riabhach respectively; compare Muintire (sic gen.) Murchadha and Túama (sic gen.) Da Ghualann, each of which are dependent on creacha. Note also the need to supply connective et following the interpolated phrase to link creacha and Túama. 138 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH don taobh aníar do Sligeach Location not specified in B §57. réimhráite The same spelling (‘réimh-.’) recurs at §§16, 24, 27, 34.

8. B §59. Destruction of Sligo Castle and thirteen other castles in the surrounding country. a meadhon Foghmhair The time of year is specified in B at the end of §60, viz. O mhedhon fochmhuine dhoibh foran apairtsin go medhón gaimhridh (p. 112 ll 30-31). Bingham reports the destruc- tion of Sligo in October, cf. BAR ii 223. trí caisléin .x. do caisléanoibh an tíre Compare B, trí caisteóil décc do chaistiallaibh Connacht (p. 110 ll 32-3). Rug braighde ó na huaislibh Cf. B, do bert geill 7 aitire ó nach aon rob omhan lais do fhrithbeirt fris nó dia aimhríar itir (p. 110 l. 33 - p. 112 l. 1).

9. B §63. Ó Domhnaill nominates Mac Uilliam and others in Connacht. Tioboid mac Bhaiteir Ciotaigh etc. The genealogy is given in B §62 p. 116 ll 23-4. Mac Donnchaidh In expanding the MS abbreviation here and elsewhere the historic form of the patronymic is adopted, as in the printed text of the Life (B p. 118 l. 18 et passim). Mac Donnchaidh an Chorainn Second element of the patronymic (absent in MS) is supplied from the source B p. 118 l. 19. Rudhraighe mac Aodha MS ‘Ruaidhridhe’ is a hybrid spelling that confuses the two names Ruaidhrí and Rudhraighe; the latter is the correct name of this individual (B, ibid.).

10. B §67-68. Peace proposals discussed at Dundalk; terms refused. Tomás Buitiléir etc. The identity of the commissioners on the English side is wrongly given here following the source (B) (as also F s.a.), cf. BAR ii 52-3. On the subject of the proposals see ibid. p. 225; also Denis Murphy, The Life of Hugh Roe O’Donnell (Dublin 1895) p. lxix-lxx. Negotiations were conducted in the month of August but the month is not mentioned in the present account or in B; in the latter the account of the proposals follows that of the con- frontation between Ó Domhnaill and Norris, which is placed in the month of June. Our text reverses the order of events. gosan Sráidbhaile S. is another name for Dún Dealgan, also ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 139 Traighbhaile, cf. below §15. Note that the text omits to mention that Ó Néill and Ó Domhnaill stayed to the north of Dundalk at Faughard (Fochard Muirthemhne), as stated by Ó Cléirigh (B §67 p. 126 ll 32-33; for the location, see F 1967 n.). d’aslach et d’iarraidh síodha Compare dfhuláiremh 7 daslach síodha 7 coenchomraic forra (B §67 p. 126 ll 21-2). Banríogan The inflected forms of this noun are noteworthy. The regular flexion in gen. sg. ends in -na (DIL s.v. ríogan, ríogain, ı¯- stem); however, in the present text gen. sg. final -an occurs where the form is written out (§§27, 41), and, accordingly, when abbreviated in the MS (stroke or dotted stroke above g) it has been so expanded, as here (see also §24); identical gen. sg. flexion occurs in B (pp 136, 234, 312, 314). Nom. sg. has the same form as gen. sg. in the present text at §27, although this may be a scribal error for -ain. o Sráidbhaile co Droichiod Átha Cf. B, ó Dhún Dealgan co Bóinn (p. 128 l. 6). gan gouernora etc. Compare B, … na tochradaois maoir ináit airríogha forra (ibid. l. 10). do amhlaighdar* a sinnsir ‘that their ancestors conceded’. The passage corresponds to B, acht namá cecip cíos do bretha fora sinnseraibh do iodhnacal dóibhsiomh go hÁth Cliath (ibid. ll 12-13). The verbal form in the MS is corrupt and translation is based on tak- ing it for 3 pl. past of the verb admhaidh, admhaighidh ‘acknowl- edges, concedes, grants’, but with the postulated form showing metathesis of the consonant cluster (dmh > mhd) and shortening of the ending (eadar > dar), possibly reflecting a dialectal pronuncia- tion. diúltadh na gcomhadha The decision to refuse terms was made at the urging of Ó Domhnaill, according to B (tria aslach 7 forchon- gra Uí Dhomhnaill, §68 p. 130 l. 25).

11. B §§65-66. Confrontation between the forces of Ó Domhnaill and Sir John Norris. i mí Iún Compare B, tosach Jun (p. 122 l. 30). As noted above, the events detailed in this paragraph came before those dealt with in the paragraphs preceding. Noruis The slender final is also in B. general cogaidh na Banriogan So also B, generail cogaid na Bainríoghan (p. 122 l. 31). gusan líon sochruide as mo etc. Compare the comment in the source, viz. Acht chena atbertis cach i coitchindi an tan sin naro 140 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH tiomairgedh 7 náro tionoladh fri haimsir imchéin inn Érinn a hucht Prionnsa Saxan coimlíon i mbatar for an slogh sin (B §65 p. 124 ll 6-9). Ó Rúairc etc. The order of names listed here differs somewhat from that in B §66 p. 124 l. 24 f., and omits the name of Ó Dubhda (ibid. l. 33). Donnchaidh For expansion of the form of the MS see above §9 (note); sic B p. 124 l. 34. do bhadar Perf. 3 pl. alternates with pret. badar (§14 etc.) (see Introduction p. 88). ro iompadar The preverb has been supplied (see above p. 134, n. do gabadh). gan gniom n-oirderc do dhénamh etc. Not in source at this point, but recurs below §40, and is a common phrase elsewhere in B (e.g. §87 p. 168 l. 27).

12. B §§71-72. Spoiling of Clanrickard and taking of Athenry. ó Bhaile an Ríogh etc. Corresponds to ó bhaile Atha an Riogh 7 ó Raith Goirrgín siar go Rinn Mhíl go Medhraighe 7 go dorus na Gaillmhe (B §72 p. 138 ll 12-13). Rinn Mhíl, i.e. Rinvil(l)e near Oranmore, Co. Galway; I follow the spelling in B (also F 2009) against MS; but name forms such as Ros a’ Mhíl may have influenced the scribe. Meathra Meadhraighe, B, i.e. ‘Maaree, a peninsula extending about five miles into the Bay of Galway, to the south of the town’ (O’Donovan, F 2009); the spelling here may be pronunciational. ro budh lía da ccreachaibh etc. Compare B, … nirbhó sodhaing dia mhuintir ina mbaoi do chrodh 7 do chethra oca do thiomargadh nach do thiomain leó dia nathardha (§72 p. 138 ll 24-5). ina mar do fheadsatt a ttiomáin* Use of the poss. adj. 3 pl. pre- ceding the verbal noun in place of expected do thiomáin seems anomalous in the context (see citation from B in foregoing note); however, the same usage is found occasionally elsewhere in the source, viz. Dobadh lionmhaire da nédálaibh da nairccthibh 7 da ccreachaibh inás amail ro fhédsat a ttiomáin [sic] ag fágbháil na hAnghaile dhóibh (B §48 p. 90 ll 26-7). ttightibh Both dat. pl. forms tigh(th)ibh alternate in the text (cf. §§11, 31).

13. B §§78-83. Drowning of Baron of Inchiquin and siege of Ballyshannon. ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 141 In Earrach na bliadhna so etc. There is a dating error here; the true date of the events referred to (August) is correctly given at the end of the paragraph. The mention of Spring may be owing to a too hasty review of the record of the campaigns of Sir Conyers Clifford against Ó Domhnaill in 1597, and also to the somewhat oblique sequence of the narrative in the source. B describes a first hosting by Clifford in the Spring (§76) which included the Earls of Thomond and Clanrickard, Clanrickard’s son and the Baron of Inchiquin (listed p. 144 ll 5-9). These rejoined Clifford in early August to participate in the attack on Ballyshannon, on which occasion Ó Conchobhair Sligigh, Ó Conchobhair Ruadh and Tiobóid na Long came also (listed §77 p. 148 ll 19-21), which is the hosting in question here. Coinius Clifford The form Coneus Cliofort occurs B §76 p. 144 l.1 et passim. ro ionnsaighseat Béal Áta Cluaine Compare B, … ro chéimnigh- siot co hÁth Cúil Uain (§78 p. 150 ll 7-8). On the name of the ford see above §3 n. airm an ro gonadh an as the form of prep. in with following rel. before preverb ro is a Mid. Ir. usage, cf. Liam Breatnach, ‘An Mheán-Ghaeilge’ in Stair na Gaeilge, ed. Kim McCone et al. (Maynooth 1994) (hereafter Stair na Gaeilge) 328 (III 13.15); the construction is found frequently in the source, see listing at BAR ii 339 (index s.v. i). For an instance of the same used before do see an do battar na Goill §25 n. o Satharn co Dia Dardaoin ar gcionn Contrast B, which makes the siege to last from Saturday until Wednesday (Batar gan anadh gan ionnuaradh ogan imdhebaid sin co cenn tri la 7 theora noidhche Luan Mairt 7 Céttaoin, §79 p. 152 ll 22-3), and the retreat via Casán na gCuradh to occur on Thursday (Gabaid an goibhernoir na hIarladha 7 na maithe atrubhramor ag crudh a ccomhairle ó urthosach oidhche dia Cedaoin go muichdhehoil maidne dia Dardaoin etc. §81 p. 156 ll 10-12). An .15. la do August insin Cf. B, Hi fel eitsechta na hí naomh Maire 7 hi coicc decc August araoi laithe mhís gréine atrulatar an sluagh sin dar Samhaoir (§83 p. 160 ll 28-29).

14. B §§85-87. Fatal wounding of Lord Thomas Borough and the Earl of Kildare. Ó Domhnaill’s raid into Connacht against Ó Conchobhair Ruadh. Boróg Borough, B, F; for a note on contemporary spelling forms of the name see F 2044 n. 142 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH do chuaidh The preverb is here supplied after the model of the form in the second sentence of the paragraph. et do rala The verbal form occurs in the corresponding context in B, viz. Foghabhat Ua Néill 7 Ua Domhnaill cona sloghaibh fora ccind an dú sin. Nirbho sodhaing saigidh foran bfochla leomain 7 for an ned ngribhe do rala tul i tul friú (§85 p. 164 ll 2-4). iar cceileabhradh dhó etc. Cf. B, Iarla Chille Dara dana rob éigen dó ceileabradh don Justis fobithin a chrechtnaighthi 7 triall dia thigh 7 ó do riacht co Droichet atha atbath isin mbaile sin do neimh 7 do thiachair a ghon. Rugadh a chorp dia thaisbenadh da chairdibh co Cill Dara 7 ro hadnacht leo e i nothairlighe a shen 7 a shinnser go nonoir 7 go nairmhittin amail robadh díor (§87 p. 166 ll 3-9). Robdar The past 3 pl. cop. form indicates that a corresponding subject (e.g. ‘úaisle’ [cf. §13 Robdar buidheach a n-úaisle] or ‘Gaoidhil’) has dropped out before the word coigidh (so expanded in the edition, but the abbreviation is unspecific and could also be for coigeadh). Cf. the corresponding phrase in B, Ro thriallsat Cenel Conaill 7 Eóghain soadh dia ndúinibh 7 dia mbailtibh bunaidh go subha 7 soimhenmain iarsan ccosgar sin (§87 p. 166 ll 14-16). conar fhágaibh boin etc. Compare … cona fargaibhset míl nin- nile ó Ath Slisen co Badgna (B §87 p. 168 l. 17). The inflexion of bó (acc. boin) here is noteworthy as the noun replaces míl of the source. The manuscript spelling Badhna seems itself phonetically based (cf. Engl. ‘Slieve Baune’, F 2038 n.), thus rendering the following phrase the more noteworthy (next n.). día ngoirthar Sliabh Bann do chanamhain The phrase is not in B (see foregoing).

15. B §§90-92. Battle of the Yellow Ford (background and prepar- ations). le druing don Ghoillsluagh The emendation of the first element of the compound of -sluagh is required by the context; cf. B, … do rala port gabhala occ na Gallaibh for Abhainn Moir frisan Macha atuaidh … 7 ro cumdaighedh an dara fecht lasan Iustis Tomas Lord Buruogh fri foimdin an choccaidh (§90 p. 172 ll 7-11). gairidsun A common variant of gairiosun; the latter form occurs in the final sentence of this paragraph. co ra battar On use of the unshortened perfective preverb here and elsewhere see Introduction p. 87; contrast pret. co mbadar in the following sentence. ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 143 Ro curidar sgeala etc. Not in B. gurob We would expect cond. rather than pres. 3 sg. in the con- text. Arna fios do Ghallaibh fios (for fhios) is here construed as a par- ticiple (cf. is f. (feas) do etc., DIL s.v. fis 154.20) (also below §28 n.); the corresponding passage in B reads: Oro fes don tSenadh 7 don Chomhairle a mbeithsiomh gan bíadh etc. (§91 p. 172 l. 33). cúig mhíle Cf. B, co mbatar cóig mile eiter troighthech 7 marcach (§91 p. 174 ll 2-3). do hordaighiodh Sir Henri Beging etc. Cf. B, Do rata Henri Beging hi ttóisighecht forra (ibid. ll 4-5). The same spelling form of Bagnall’s surname is employed in F (see F 2060 n.). Tionolaid Ó Néill et O Domhnaill etc. The editorial rendering of the verbal form is conjectural; regular expanded form ‘tionoladh’ does not suit the context. Hence also doubt attends editorial deletion of MS ‘a’ (preceding socruide). The content of the first part of this sentence is abstracted from a longer passage in B, viz. Oro fhitir Ó Néill íattsomh do thionol faoidhis a thechta do thocuired Uí Dhomhnaill resiu batar fúirithi na Gaill. Ticcsidhe co lerthionól a loechraidhe eiter traighthech 7 marcach 7 araill do choigedh Olneccmocht ina fharradh. Tangatar tra Gaoidil coigid Conchobhair isin toichestal sin co tinnesnach (§91-2, p. 174 ll 7-13). go ro ghabhsat longport etc. The record of positions taken up by the opposing forces in this and the sentence beginning Tangattar na Goill etc. is abstracted from B §92 (p. 174 ll 13-19). dúnchlasacha A hybrid term apparently based on dúnchladh ‘dyke, rampart’ (cf. cladh ‘fence’) and cla(i)s ‘ditch, trench’. It is noteworthy that in B the construction of fortifications is referred to more in passing as part of the account of the English advance in §97, viz. … co ndusficcdis (i.e. na Goill) i ffail i mbatar cluidh 7 clasacha 7 úamhfhochladha talmhan ro chlaidhset an Gaoidelshluagh for ciund na nGall an conair in rob erdhalta leó a ngabhail (p. 180 l. 9 f.). lándoimhne For the adjective (MS ‘lánndoimhne’) see the expression used in the context of the description of the English advance in B, O do rúachtatar an sluagh Gall darsan ccedna lethanchlais lándomain ro claided fora ccind (§97 p. 180 ll 16-17); also the corresponding passage in F, co ro lingsiot tarsan ccedna lethan clais lánndomhain (sic)(F 2072). The MS spelling of the word (with double n) is noteworthy in light of the instance from F just cited, and similar spellings elsewhere in the same source (e.g. at 144 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH conncatar an longport lán ndaingen, ibid. p. 1968) (see further Introduction, p. 92). Traighbhaile On this name see §10 n.

16. B §§97-99. Battle of the Yellow Ford and aftermath. co rangattar tar an ccéadchlais See the corresponding passage in B cited in the foregoing n. (§15 lándoimhne). do ionnsaighsiot a cheile co dioghair dasachtach Cf. B, … atraghat Gaoidil ina nagaid 7 ro chomhghairset dhoibh go dighair dásachtoch (§97 p. 180 ll 18-19). óir do marbadh … amaille ris The passage combines informa- tion from two passages in B, viz. Acht chena ro horta generáil an tsloigh Gall 7 a ccuingidh catha .i. Henri Beging 7 iliomat día núais- libh 7 dia naireachaibh imaroén ris (§98 p. 182 ll 27-9); and Basedh a lionsaidhe febh atrimhet a neolaigh dí mhíle ar chóicc cédaibh imá ngeneráil co nocht ccaiptinibh décc imalle fris dúaislibh 7 do dhaghdaoinibh (§99 p. 184 ll 33-6). Et a tternó as do Ghallaibh etc. Paraphrases B §99 p. 184 ll 4- 13. do bhás ina leanmhain Cf. B, ro bás ina leanmain (§30 p. 62 l. 8). For pret. pass. ro bás see above §13; instances of the present form occur at §§25, 44, with lenition of the initial following do possibly dialectal and original to the text. co ro ceadaighsiot Preverb supplied following similar usage else- where (see Introduction p. 88). An .x. la do August Cf. B, An deachmad lá do August i nurthosach foghamair do rattadh an cath sin (§99 p. 186 ll 1-2).

17. B §100. Recovery of Ballymote Castle and its purchase by Ó Domhnaill from the sons of Mac Donnchaidh an Chorainn. Baile an Mhotaigh Unhistorical Mhótaigh (for Mhóta) is the spelling used regularly in the source. le a duthchasaibh This phrase echoes that in B, Cathal Dubh 7 Tomaltach Óg da mhac Cathail Mic Donnchaid iaidsidhe 7 ba dóib roba ruidhlius araoi ndúthchusa an dúnadh (§100 p. 186 ll 19-20). ar Ghallaibh Prep. ó ‘from’ might also be used in the context. trí bliadhna dég Omission of dég reflects loss in the MS of roman ‘x’; cf. B, fri ré theóra mblíadhan décc (ibid. l. 12). September sic B, ibid. l. 28. ar ceithre chéd púnta et ar thrí chéd bó sic B, ibid. l. 35. Tug O Dochartaigh Cf. B, Do bert O Dochartaigh Seaan Óg naoi ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 145 ffichit ponnta don argat sin dUa Domhnaill hi ccongnamh (p. 188 ll 7-9). Ba isin mbaile sin as faide do baoi The comment that from that time onwards until he left Ireland Ó Domhnaill mostly resided in Ballymote is not found in B, where the episode closes as follows: Do rattadh an baile iaromh dUa Dhomhnoill 7 airisis ann iarttain (ibid. l. 9-10). A further reference to Ó Domhnaill’s continued residency at Ballymote Castle occurs in B at §105 (s.a. 1599), viz. Do reglomtha a shlóigh lais co haonmhaigin go Baile an Mhotaigh ar ba heisidhe a dunarus o do ruaichledh leis a féil naomhMari mathar an Choimdedh isin mbliadhain remedeochaidh febh ro aisneidhsem (p. 198 ll 1-4). Significantly, the Four Masters record exclusively s.a. 1601 that following the imprisonment of Donnchadh Ó Conchobhair in Lough Esk in 1601 (reported below §36), Ó Domhnaill repos- sessed the castle at Ballymote which he had previously given to Ó Conchobhair (F 2249).

18. B §103. Ó Domhnaill’s raid into Clanrickard and the slaying of two sons of Ó Lochlainn and capture of Mac Hiobaird. Cill Colgan Kilcolgan, 4 ml. S. E. of Clarinbridge, Co. Galway. i cCloinn Riocaird Dative form supplied following §24; regularly thus in B. co Dún Guaire (MS ‘don Ghuaire’) The reference is to Dún Guaire (Dungory, near Kinvara, Co. Galway). The MS reading shows corruption both here and later in the sentence (MS ‘mic Lochlainn’ for Í L.); textual restoration is based on the wording of the source where the account of the killing of the sons of Ó Lochlainn occurs in context as follows (emphasis added):

… ro sccaoilit a sceimhealta uaidibh da gach leith imon tír ina timcheall tria chertmedhon Cloinne Riocairtt siar go riacht drong dhiobh in iomfhochraib dOirecht Rémainn 7 aroile go Dun Guaire hi Coill O bFiachrach. Do marbadh 7 do mudaighedh ile do doichenelchaibh 7 do shoichenelchaibh leosoidhe. Itiet robtar airegdha dona soicheneloibh do rochratar ann Toirrdhealbach Buidhe 7 Brian da mhac Rosa m Uaithne m Maoileachloinn Uí Lochloinn. (B §103 p. 192 ll 15-22)

It is noteworthy that while B does not specifically state here that Dún Guaire was the location of the action, the corresponding account in the Annals (F) makes the connection explicit, viz. 146 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH Do rónadh echta mora lás an lucht sin do choidh go Coill Ua fFiachrach .i. da mhac Rossa mic Uaitne mic Maoilechlainn Uí Lochlainn, Toirrdhelbhach Buidhe, 7 Brian do mharbhadh. (F 2086)

ó Dhisert Cheallaigh Emendation (MS ‘ó Dhiseirt Í Cheallaigh’) is based on B, viz. Erghabthar Mac Hoiberd [sic] ó Disert Ceallaigh (p. 192 l. 30). O’Donovan identifies Mac Hoberd (sic) as ‘an assumed by a head of a sept of the Burkes’, and the place as ‘Isertkelly, a castle in a parish of the same name, situated to the southwest of the town of Loughrea, in the county of Galway’ (F 2086 n.). Ni bhfuil i ccuimhne oiris no annalaigh Compare similar hyper- bole in the estimate of the plunder in the source viz. Niro tiomairgedh coibheis na cutromugadh dona creachaibh sin do búar biodhbadh inn aoinfhecht riamh go sin gusan mbaile sin ó conro- tacht cédus eisidhe (B p. 194 ll 6-9). co ro cruinnighiodh Emended form (MS ‘cinnighiodh’) is re- quired by the sense; corresponds to B, Niro tiomairgedh (see forego- ing). ó ro cumdaigheadh e le Gearaltachaibh ‘since it was built by the Fitzgeralds’; there is no corresponding phrase in B. Ballymote Castle was constructed c. 1300 by William de Burgo, but takes its name from an early 13th century Anglo-Norman motte (cf. Lord Killanin and Michael V. Duignan, Shell guide to Ireland (London 1962) 90-91). The tradition mentioned here that it was first estab- lished by the Fitzgeralds has not been traced, and the possibility of error cannot be excluded. One wonders whether the reference to the Fitzgeralds could possibly have arisen through a transposition, resulting from a hasty reading of a later and altogether unconnected passage in B §102, which reports concerning the northern alliance with the house of James Earl of Desmond, of whom it is said Do Geraltachaibh a shlondadhsaidhe (p. 188 ll 32-3).

19. B §106. Hosting of Ó Domhnaill’s adherents at Ballymote. Ceinéil for the gen. inflexion as emended see §§22, alongside the alternative Ceineóil. ina mbaoi ‘(of) all that were’; for this Mid. Ir. form of the demons. rel. particle see Stair na Gaeilge 276; BAR ii 239 s.v. a; con- trast regular monosyllabic form of demons. rel. a (mbaoi) below §§20, 24, 31(cf. GOI p. 298). ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 147 ’na gcomhrannaibh Dat. pl. gcomhranntaibh occurs also. Rudhraighe On the MS spelling (here corrected) see above §9 n.

20. B §107. Ó Domhnaill sends raiders into territory of Mac William. O rangattar na maithe etc. Cf. B, O do riachtatar na maithe sin cona sochraide i naendáil chugasomh go Baile an Motaigh ba fair desidh lais slúagh do legadh uadh i Rann Mic Villiam etc. (p. 198 l. 30 f.). réimhráite (MS ‘rimhráite’), spelling adjusted in accordance with §§7, 16 et passim (but rémhráite §24). Oilen Leathardain Lahardaun, Co. Mayo (on the location see F 2098 n.). et do marbadh ocht bfir décc … cenmothát Cf. B, Ro marbadh 7 ro mudaigheadh ocht ffir dhecc do maithibh Cloinne Giobun co ndruing mhoir oile génmothatsomh (p. 200 ll 20-22). et do creachsat Cf. B, Ro creachairgedh an baile leo íerttain (ibid. ll 22-23). neamhrannaib neamhrann ‘enemy’ (rare; see the antonym comh- rann ‘ally’ passim).

21. B §108. Ó Domhnaill begins raid into Thomond. haitriostar sic; cf. B, Ni haithrestar a nuidhedha gó sin (p. 200 l. 30); non-palatal s in the stem may be analogical, see further do haithriosadh below §26; contrast regular ni haithristear §42. gusan Ruaidhbeithigh, i.e. Roevehagh, a townland in bar. of Dunkellin, Co. Galway (cf. F 2098 n.); cf. B, Do ghniet airisiomh im thrath nóna ar an Ruaidhbeithigh eitir Cill Colgan 7 Ardrathuin (p. 200 ll 30-32). do ghabhattar ag eadromadh etc. Cf. B, … ro ghabhsat occ urgnamh a nairberta bith 7 oc etromugad a menbholg etc. (p. 200 l. 33 f.). ó thuathaibh Toraighe a ttúaisgeart Cf. B, a hoirer Toraighe íer ttúaiscert ‘from the outland region of Tory to the north’ (p. 202 l. 2). Substitution of prep. a (= i) in place of íer (íar) (DIL s.v. 17. 30 f.) is inept and possibly scribal. bhoí cuid d’fíon na Spáine Cf. B, Ro bhaoi bheos araill do fhion 7 cormaim na Spaine occa dhail etc. (p. 202 l. 3 f.). a cceadóir The phrase is misplaced here through dittography (see following sentence). 148 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH 22. B §109. Spoiling of Thomond (continued). an .17. lá do mhí Feabhra, sic B, p. 202 ll 28-9. co taoi taoithenach For this stock expression see B §101 p. 188 l. 18. tre ródaibh MS ‘treas na’ is treated here as a scribal corruption and the restored text follows the source, viz. B, do dheachatar hi cend tseda 7 imthechta tre ródaibh raoindirghi na criche (p. 202 l. 9-10). The MS form might be taken as prep. < tarsna ‘across’ which, however, should be followed by gen. (instead of dat. here). raondírghe Note non-palatalisation of final of the first element as often (see Introduction p. 93); contrast B, raoin-. (foregoing citation). triochad céd Cf. tríocha céd in source; the modern nom. form tríochad is used §§23, 29 et passim. O ráinig dh’O nDomhnaill etc. The wording of this passage closely follows B, viz. Ro rann Úa Domhnaill a sceimhealta dia legadh uadha asan maighin sin. Do leig drong día mhiledhaibh traighthech im Thadhg Ua Ruairc 7 im Mac Suibhne mBóghuinech isteach badhthúaidh i mBoirind Connacht cona elaitis creacha na Tuadhmuman tairis fo dhithrebhaibh na daingenBoirne 7 ro dhálus- tair co heitirmhedón na críche chucca íat. Ro leicc an droing naile don taobh thes isteach co Baile Uí Ógáin na Coille Móire do Thulaigh Uí Dhedhaidh go dorus Baile Uí Griobtha. Imsáiset as sin badthuaidh go Druim Fionnghlaisi go Coradh Fhinde 7 go Cill Ingheine Baoith hi ccomdhail Uí Dhomnaill (p. 202 ll 13-24). troicheach, i.e. troightheach; spelling recurs at §15. a n-oireas elóidh creach Tuadhmhumhan If the phrase used (written ‘anoires elóidh’) is here correctly interpreted as prep. in with n. aires, al. oires, followed by vn. ‘as a means of escape’ (other instances not to hand), the formulation contradicts the sense of the source in which the corresponding phrase is cona elaitis creacha na Tuadhmuman ‘lest the preys of Thomond might excape’ (see forego- ing note). The misreading seems more likely to have arisen owing to haste on the part of the author rather than the scribe. Coraigh Fhinne (MS ‘Coraighsinne’) Cf. B, go Coradh Fhinne (see above n. O rainig etc.). Bealach an Fhiodhfhail (MS ‘Bealach an Mhuighre’) For the restored form see the corresponding passage in B, viz. tria lár Choille Ó bFlannchadha tre Bealach an Fhiodhfhail go Cill Ingheine Baoith i núachtar Dál cCais (p. 202 ll 26-8). (See note on B. an Fhiodhfhail, F 2100.) Mention of B. an Maighre (Moiry Pass, Co. Armagh) is clearly misplaced in the context; but the reference is ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 149 noteworthy as it was the location of a battle between opposing forces under Ó Néill and Mountjoy in 1600 (F 2222, and see n.), of which mention is made among a list of battles of the Nine Years’ War included in the poem by Eoghan Ruadh Mac an Bhaird A bhean fuair faill ar an bhfeart (ed. Eleanor Knott, ‘Mac an Bhaird’s elegy on the Ulster lords’ Celtica 5 (1983) 161-71 (q. 19)). The following section of text is marked by other corruption including an instance of dittography (‘cona tromslúag na bhfochair’) and minor lapses besides (see following note). Do rada chuicce etc. Cf. B, Do rattadh chuicce creacha Cheineoil Fermeic uile durmhor on Disert co Gleann Colaimb Cille 7 go Tulaigh Cumann 7 ó Chluain Soilchernaigh co Léim an Eich (p. 202 ll 29-32). The wording of the source although closely followed has been modified. Thus replacement of pret. pass. do rattadh (B)by a Mid. Ir. pret. pass. pl. form (do rada) seems deliberate as occur- rences of the pl. form are frequent elsewhere in B (cf. BAR ii 293). On the other hand, the omission of chuicce (supplied here from the source as the context requires) is clearly a slip. Other (probably scribal) errors are MS ‘Tuiligh’ for T. Cumann (cf. F 2101 n.), MS ‘im Clúain Sailcernaigh’ for ó Cluain Soilcernaigh (cf. ibid. n.) (the former in the par. of Kilnaboy, bar. Burren, the latter in par. Kilkeedy, bar. Inchiquin). Boi tra Ó Domhnaill The reference to encampment overnight at Kilnaboy is brought forward here (cf. B, Ro ghabh Úa Domhnaill longphort in adaigh sin hi cCill Ingheine Baeith,§110 p. 204 ll 7 f.). et ni rainig le Tadhg Ó Rúairc etc. Repeated from B §109 p. 202 l. 32-4.

23. B §§110, 111, 113. Spoiling of Thomond (continued). Ro eirigh O Domhnaill a much do ló etc. Cf. B, O rosfortamh- laigh soilse an laoí forsna rendaibh aidchidhe atracht Úa Domnaill 7 do bert a aghaidh for triochait ched Corcmodruadh go rainicc go Cill Fhionnabhrach etc. (§110 p. 204 ll 13 f.). go hEighnigh Cf. B p. 204 l. 16; i.e. Eidhneach, Inagh, near Milltown Malbay, Co. Clare (F 2102 n.). fan mBréntír bhFearmacaigh et cCorcamaigh Cf. B, fon mBrentír fFermacaig 7 cCorcamaigh (p. 204 ll 16-17), and F, gusan mbreintir ffermacaigh, 7 ccorcamaigh [ccormacaigh] (F 2102), i.e. ‘the fetid district of the Kinel-Fermaic and Ui-Cormaic’ (ibid. n.). The remainder of this sentence follows B almost word by word. treota MS ‘trecta’ i.e. treotha, treothu < tríothu; cf. the corresponding 150 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH passage in B, An tan tra atconnairc Ó Domnaill gach tealach 7 gach dinn dia mbuí ina uirthimchell occa niomfholach do chrodh 7 do chreachaibh (conarbo leir an talomh treotha ara dhlus …) (p. 204 ll 21-24). do cinn tiompodh etc. Cf. B, asedh ro chinn aige soadh arabh- arach tria beilghibh biothfhoda baoghlacha na Boirne bennghairbhe (ibid. ll 26-28). Et ar n-eirge Cf. B, Lotar iaromh i mucha do ló i sedshlighthibh na senBoirne sair etc. (§111 p. 206 ll 17 f.). gusan Rubha etc. Cf. B, gusan Rubha do shunradh i niarthar O fFiachrach Aidhne (ibid. ll 26-27). For a note on Rubha i.e. Roo, tl. in bar. Kiltartan, Co. Galway, see F 2103. Anaid ann etc. Cf. B, Gabhait longphort hi suidhiu an adaigh sin (ibid. ll 28-29). et ar n-eirge doibh etc. Cf. B, Lotar arabhárach tri uachtar Cloinne Riocaird 7 co dorus Baile Átha an Riogh. Ni haithrestar a nimthechta ó sin amach acht nama do rala Mac Uilliam 7 Niall Garbh cona ccreachaibh ina ccomhdhail i leithimel Ó Maine 7 dothaot cách uaidibh uile dia ttigibh go sédach somhaoinech menm- nach moraigentach (p. 208 ll 4-9). leathimioll Ó Maine For the phrase see foregoing citation from B and above §7 n. Boisiomh tra ’na comhnaidhe isin mbaile sin etc. This sentence paraphrases B §113, beginning Baoi tra Úa Domhnaill i mBaile an Motaigh i fos gan fecht gan sloigedh o dheiredh Februari go midhmhedhón samhraidh etc. (p. 210 ll 22-34). (See above §17 and n.) et do rannadh i ndibh leithibh etc. Compare the corresponding wording in B, Ro rannta i ndé 7 do rattadh an rann tanuise dÚa Néill … ar as déroinn no bhiodh for gach naisccidh dusficcedh día saigidh on Spáin (ibid. l. 27-34).

24. B §§113-115. Siege of Collooney. Tainicc tra etc. Cf. B §114 p. 212 l. 9 f. a bhfochair Iarla of Essex Cf. B, i ffaraidh Iarla of Essex, ibid. l. 9. Compare this partial rendering into Irish of the English title (also F 2114 etc.) with the similar rendering Maighster Cúirt of Uarde, found in ‘Cín Lae Ó Mealláin’ (Anal. Hib. 3 (1931) 37 (l. 6)). ro furail an tIarla etc. Paraphrases B, §115 p. 214 l. 31 f. Ro furail mur an gcéadna etc. Cf. B, Ro erb dan fair a fhor- chongra for Theabóitt na Long m Risderd etc. (p. 216 l. 2 f.). Tainig tra O Conchobhair ríasna toicheastlaibh sin etc. The ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 151 passage paraphrased here begins at B §114 p. 212 l. 25 f. (… go ttainic Ua Conchobhair go hinchleithe úathadh daoíne etc.). creachfhuadan bhó ‘a stolen prey of cows’; cf. DIL s.v. 2 fúatán ‘a theft’. Cf. B, go rug gabhail bhó ó druing do mhuintir Uí Dhomhnaill (§114 p. 212 l. 27). caisléan Culmhaine B, caistíall Cuilmaoile (ibid. l. 26.); for the variant forms of the name see F 1976 n., and see above note on §3 Béal Átha Cúlmhuine. óir ní raibhe énbhaile aige Cf. B, Ni bhaoi eimh dunadh no dain- genchaistiall innill dósamh nach fora ccommus badhdein isin crich uile cénmotha an taonchaistiall hisin (§114 p. 212 ll 30-31). i gcondae Sligigh The term condae does not occur in the source (see foregoing citation). Ar ccluinsin na sgeal sin dh’O Domhnaill etc. Two passages from the source are abstracted here viz. B, Otchúalaidh Ó Domhnaill an tomhaithemh 7 an tarcusal dothaot fochetoir diorma marcshloigh ó Bhaile an Mótaigh go ranaic gan anadh gan oirisemh co hÁth Senaidh (ibid. l. 13-16), and Forrochongairt O Domhnaill fora mharcshluagh gan anadh fria miledhaib traighthech co ristis an caistiall etc. (l 32 f.). oiriosamh On the spelling (cf. oirisemh in foregoing citation from B), see Introduction p. 92; a further example occurs below §38. Et do ghabh ag iomsuighe etc. Cf. B, Ara aoi gabaidh O Domhnaill longphort ar belaibh an fhedha 7 ro thingheall na fuiccfed an iomshuidhe go mbeith O Conchobair 7 Cuilmaoilí ara chommus etc. (p. 214 l. 8 f.). Ro clos ceana fo Eirinn Cf. B, Ro leth co coitchend fo Éirinn Úa Domhnaill do beith occ iomshuidhe an bhaile etc. (§115 p. 214 l. 20 f). Emendation of the MS reading (‘cédna’) here is doubtful, given the corresponding form co coitchend in B. Tionólaidh etc. The expansion of the MS abbreviation of the final syllable in the verb is tentative, but 3 sg. pres. form seems required in the context and is supported by corresponding text in B, Dusficc íerttain co Rus Commain etc. (§116 p. 216 l. 20). ocht mbratacha .xx. Cf. B, lotar iaromh a Ros Commain ocht mbratacha fichet co rangatar co Tuillsci. Aissidhe dhoibh go maini- stir na Buille (p. 218 ll 6-7).

25. B §§117, 119-123. Battle of the Curlews and slaying of Sir Conyers Clifford. do fhagaibh Niall O Domhnaill etc. Cf. B, Do fhagaibh Niall 152 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH Garbh O Domhnaill i tuisighecht an choimeda etc. (§117 p. 218 l. 18 f.). loingis The broad final of the MS may reflect pronunciation. tar a ttangamar For the emendation here see the same usage in §15 above. Do cúaidh féin co Coirrslíabh Cf. B, Luidh feisin cona shlogh co Coirrshliabh na Seghsa (p. 218 l. 20). et ro ghabh longport ag Beal an Atha Fada The exact location of Ó Domhnaill’s camp is not specified in either B (see foregoing) or F (p. 2124); Béal an Átha Fada mentioned here is on the shore of L. Arrow, separated from L. Key by the Curlews (see Hogan, Onom. 103 s. n.) and close to Bealach Buidhe where the battle took place (see note below). Bhaoi bheós Ó Rúairc i bhfoslongphort ar leith don taobh thoir do Coirrsliabh Mention of O’Rourke comes later in the sequence in B (viz. §122 p. 230 l. 9, Do rala O Ruairc tigerna Breifne Connacht an tan sin alla anair don Choirrshliabh i long- phort for leith). Iar mbeith don Gobernóir cona slúag For the corresponding passage in B (§119 p. 222 ll 23-30) and comment see Introduction pp 84-5. tresan mBealaigh mBuidhe i.e. Bellaghboy, bar. Tirerrill, Co. Sligo (see F 2125 n.). The actual location of the Battle of the Curlews is not mentioned in the context of the corresponding account in B, although the name occurs in a retrospective reference at §132 p. 246 l. 12 ( viz. ier sraoinedh catha an Belaigh Buidhe 7 íar marbadh an Goibernora). That it was known as Cath an Bhealaigh Bhuidhe is shown by reference to it in A bhean fuair faill ar an bhfeart (Celtica 5 (1983) 166, q. 22 ‘Lá catha an Bhealaigh Bhuidhe’). Et do concattar an lucht faircsi etc. Cf. B, An tan ba glanruith- neach an grian friú occ an bfairccsi atchíat an slogh ag airitin a narm etc. (§120 p. 226 l. 32 f.). ag mallasgnamh ‘moving slowly’; for this expression see B §118 p. 220 l. 18. Ro furailsiomh etc. Cf. B, … ro ordaigh i rémhthus na conaire co ndianascnaitis remhibh do dheabaid frisan slogh resiu tístais tar moithribh an maighshlebhe (p. 228 ll 1-2). aos diuraice i.e. aos diubhraicthe (< diu(bh)racadh, cf. DIL s.v. díbirciud ‘casting throwing’) ‘shooters’; the pronunciation spelling diuraice occurs again below, viz. aga bfroisdiuracadh, a ndiuraicte, dona diubhracibh. ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 153 cco ttia siomh I take ttia as a variant of pres. subj. 3 sg. of tigim (do-icc); the diphthong in place of long -í is anomalous and may be influenced by by-forms of téighim/ tiaghaim, unless a scribal error; in fact a past subj. form (-tísadh) might be expected. co ttothacht et co ttrom an tsluaigh: compare the phrase co ttiugh 7 co ttóthacht an tsloigh (occurs B §109 p. 202 l. 26). do cath The noun has the force of a verbal noun on the model of the preceding phrase do dheabaidh. a gonnaighibh gleesoibne Cf. B, a gunnadaibh glésoibne (§121 p. 228 l. 20). gearradhairc ‘sharp-sighted’; for this description applied to guns, cf. F 2126 (cona ngonnaidhibh guthárda gérradharcacha). et gaoidhibh The preposition is not repeated; omission is optional, and is particularly common in shorter phrases (e.g. d’eachaibh 7 groidibh; do mhaoinibh 7 ionnmusaibh). aga ttimcelladh da ndib leitibh etc. Cf. B, Ro crécchtnaighit curaid 7 ro loititt loechrad for dib leithib etc. (p. 228 l. 37 f). ro muidhiodhadh The palatal stem (< mudhaighidh ‘overcomes, kills’) is not instanced elsewhere. re bheith n-athgoirid etc. The construction here and the formu- lation in what follows to the end of the paragraph is largely inde- pendent of the source. tiagdís Imperf. 3 pl. rel. of téid ‘goes’. iar ttrasccairt an Goibernóir The noun is left undeclined in the genitive. co Mainistir Refers to Boyle, apparently used as placename here and in following paragraph; but not so in the source, cf. B, go ndicc- set rempa ina roén madhma gusan mainistir (sic) remraitiu (§122 p. 230 ll 19-20). co hionadh in iomairg, et an do battar na Goill ‘to the place of the battle, and (in the place) where the English were’. The extended phrase combines elements from two passages in B, viz. Do rala O Ruairc … gusan maigin i mbadar muinter Uí Domhnaill ag gniomh an iomairg (ibid. ll 9, 17-18), and co ttoracht Ó Ruairc fodheóidh gusan airm a mboí 7 atgnia guruo he an Goibernoir (p. 232 ll 1-2). The anachronistic construction an do battar recalls a Mid. Ir. use of prep. in with rel. (‘where’) written as an before do (Mid. Ir. ro), with ionadh as antecedent here; compare (airm) an ro gonadh above §13 n. aga bfoghbhadh et aga n-athmharbhadh The phrase echoes the description of treatment of the wounded at Boyle in B, gabhait occ 154 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH fodhbadh an fhianlaigh ro mharbhsat 7 og athghuin in oesa beóghoeite foghabhdais isin armaigh (§123 p. 232 l. 11). ro furail a dhícheannadh Cf. B, fororchongart a dichendadh (§122 p. 232 ll 3-4). ba sáimh ro codailset etc. Cf. B, ba saimh contuilset an adaigh sin (§123 p. 234 l. 1). 26. B §124. Ó Conchobhair Sligigh surrenders at Collooney. do haithriosadh See haitriostar above §21 n. congnamh gacha ceinéil spreighe et arbha etc Cf. B, do bheart Úa Domhnaill dírimhe do bhuaibh deochaibh 7 dinnilibh 7 da gach cenel cruidh 7 arbha archena i congnamh dUa Chonchobair conadh friusidhe rus cédaitreabh a thir cidh íerttain (p. 234 l. 23 f). gusan am sa .1600. The date here is incorporated from the con- clusion of B’s account of 1599 at §125, viz. Ro thochaithestoir O Domhnaill ind aimsir asa haithle i sadhaile 7 hi soinmhighe co tosaigh samraidh ar ccind gan saigid vor neach gan neach do shaigidh fair Anno 1600 (p. 236 l. 31 f). 27. B §132. Force under Docwra enters Lough Foyle, establishes at Culmore and takes Derry. Ar scrudadh etc. Cf. B, Otchiad Senadh Duiblinne naro chu- maingset cosnam coiccid Medbha fri hÚa nDomnaill etc. (p. 246 l. 11 f). as si comhairle ar ro chinnsiot etc. Cf. B, asedh arriocht leo- saidhe dfhostad Uí Dhomhnaill ina thir a comhairle na níarladh remraite tasccar murchoblaigh moir do thochar for muir i mbatar sé mile fer doccbaidh armtha eidighthe gusna haidhmibh batar toisc- cidhe dóibh eitir biudh 7 arm. Ba la bainriogain Saxan 7 lasan cComairli archena do rionsganta an coblach sin do chor co hEirinn im fhel Patraicc doshonnradh etc. (p. 246 ll 16-23). tre aslach etc. Cf. B, a comairle na níarladh (foregoing citation). Banrioghan On this nom. sg. form see §10, n. Banríogan. d’fosdadh et d’iomfhuireach The phrase occurs in B §134 p. 250 l. 12. im fhéil Padraig na bliadhna soin sé mhíle fear Details from source (note above on as si comhairle etc.). Sir Henri Dochair The commander is identified by name in B for the first time at §133 p. 248 l. 26, viz. Henri Docur (sic). April sic B p. 246 l. 25. lámh chlí ré hÉirinn Cf. B, lamh chli fri hor nErenn anoirtuaidh (ibid. l. 26). ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 155 go ruachtsattar i lorg aonloinge Cf. B, co riachtatar eing i neing i lurg áonluincce (ibid. ll 27-28). The form ruachtsattar (pret. 3 pl. dependent < roichim) shows a regular vocalic variant in the stem (cf. rochtuin, ruachtain, riachtain, IGT III §15); for the ending see Stair na Gaeilge 301 (12.38). Compare the variant do riachtsattar §34 below. .10. lá do Mai sic B (ibid. l. 32). Et donid daingean isan Chúil Mhóir Abridges B p. 248 ll 4-10; regarding the syllable omitted in the MS, compare mur daingen (sic) dithoghlaidhe imón caistiall (ibid. l. 8). et a nDoire The taking of Derry is reported in B §133.

28. B §§135-136. Ó Dochartaigh and Niall Garbh Ó Domhnaill are left to contain the English under Docwra in Inishowen, while Ó Domhnaill raids Thomond. re hucht et urbhruinne For the collocation cf. DIL s.v. airbru- inne. The connective is supplied here and in the same phrase in §37; in both instances the phrase occurs in close proximity to other cor- ruption of the text (see the MS form corresponding to ucht in the pre- sent instance). The corresponding phrase in B is fri huchtbhruinne ‘against, opposing’, B §135 p. 250 l. 18 (frequent elsewhere in B also, cf. BAR ii 406). Et as eadh do chinn féin etc. Cf. B, Ro chinnestair O Domhnaill a chomhairle samlaidh etc. (p. 250 l. 16 f). tar ttangamar Ellipsis of the rel. particle may be scribal; see above §§15, 25 (and n.). Do cuir togairm et tionol Cf. B §135 p. 250 ll 22-27; on the for- mal correspondence between these passages see Introduction p. 85-6. The abstract omits to mention that the hosting took place in the month of June (i mi Iun, B §136 p. 252 l. 15). Details of the exact date of the raid into Thomond are given in the source as part of the account of Ó Domhnaill’s movements prior to his arrival at the R. Fergus. B states that his forces rested in Clanrickard on the Saturday before the Feast of St John [24 June] which fell on the following Tuesday (ba heisidhe an satharn ría fféil Eóin baoi foran mairt ar ccind, ibid. l. 24). lion a ttionóil ‘with their full following’ (nominative of accompa- niment). tré Machaire Connocht tre Magh Aoi, B (§136 p. 252 l. 19). tré Cenél Aodha etc. For the itinerary here see B, Ro asgna íaromh cona shlógh dOireacht Remainn tar Sliabh nEchtghi inghine 156 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH

Ursccothaigh m Tinne do Chenél Aódha do Chenel Dúnghaile 7 do Chloinn Chuilen Úachtair go rainicc tar Forghus síar ria midmhe- dhon laoi dia domnaig conadh ann ro ghabsat airisiomh don taobh tiartúaidh do Chluain Ramhatta 7 dInis (§136 pp 252 (l. 29)- 254 (l. 5)). tre Cenél Dúngaile Emendation of MS following source (see foregoing citation); for a note on Cinel Donghaile (sic F), tribal name of the O’Gradys, see F 2196. et do Cloinn Coiléin Note the variation between prep. tre ‘through’ and do ‘through’ here, which may have caused the scribe to omit the connective. Clann Choiléin is one of the tribal names of Clann Mhic Conmara in Thomond (see note F 2048). tar Forgas The feminine ending of the form in the MS (‘Forgais’) is noteworthy in light of consistent use of the feminine article with the river name referred to below (n. an Fhorghais). re meadhon laoi Dia Domhnaigh Cf. B (foregoing citation). Arising from the omission to mention the month in which they took place (see above note Do cuir togairm), the reporting of events in daily sequence in these paragraphs of the abstract is unsatisfactory. Et ro loisgedh … ach an mainisttir da ttugsat cadhas Cf. B, Ro loiscced 7 ro hoirccedh Inis co léir 7 co lomardha lásan slogh cen- motha an mainistir namá dia ro erfhuagair Ua Domhnaill comairce 7 cádhus do thabhairt ind onóir an Choimded (§136 p. 254 ll 4-7). Et tarla d’Íarla Tuadhmumhan etc. The sentence closely fol- lows the wording of source, Ba hann do rala dIarla Túadhmhuman etc. (ibid. l. 7 f.). cona banda suighdiúrdha Cf. B, co nuathadh sloigh ina fhar- raidh (ibid. l. 12). as eadh do roinne etc. Cf. B, basedh do roine asccnam co nuathadh buidhne co hionfhoilgidhe la hor an Fhorghais siar cech ndireach febh as innille forcaomhnaccair co rainicc gusan cClar (ibid. ll 17-20). With do roinne contrast form in B and below §36 (do rinne). co hanfoilighthe Intensive prefix an- followed by Mod. Ir. past part. here construes the form co hionfhoilgidhe ‘secretly’ (B l. 18, foregoing citation) for which see DIL s.v. in-foilgi ‘hides’ (part. infoilgidhe). an Forgais The river name is consistently linked with fem. form of the article in the genitive in the MS (‘na’), e.g. §30 (see readings). co rainig gusan gClár Clarecastle near Ennis, otherwise Clár Mór (F) (see citation in following note). ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 157 Ro ionsaighsiot muinntir I Domhnaill etc. Not in B (as noted above, Introduction p. 83-4). The attack on Clarecastle carried out by some of Ó Domhnaill’s forces without his knowledge (gan airiu- gadh d’O nD.), and the wounding of the two named individuals is passed over by Ó Cléirigh, who mentions merely that it was a strong and impregnable fortress (Ba dia bailtibh longphuirt siomh an baile ishin 7 ba daingen dithoglaidhe eisidhe ceni beithsiom cusan líon ro baoi occa imdhiden, p. 254 ll 21-23). The Four Masters, on the other hand, report the incident stating that the two named individuals were fatally wounded and succumbed en route back to Donegal:

Ro badh don druing roptar athgaoite dia maithibh an tan sin Tadhcc ócc, mac Neill, mic neill ruuidh, mic néill, mic Toirrdhealbhaigh Óicc mic Toirrdhelabhaigh Bhearnaigh Uí Bhaoighill, 7 Duibhgionn, mac Mheccon, mic Con Coiccriche Uí Cleirigh, 7 ba hann ro gonadh iadsidhe, araon la druing ele do mhuinntir Uí Domhnaill ro báttar ag ionnsaighidh an Cláir Mhóir for Iarla Tuadhmumhan. As ón cClár sin ainmnighthear Conntae an Cláir. Atbathsat an dias remraite for an cconair ag sóadh doibh, 7 ro iomchuiritt araon dia ttíribh co ro hadhnaicitt i nDún na nGall. (F 2198-220)

(Concerning the observation on the toponym Clár in the passage cited, see O’Donovan’s note p. 2200.) Duibhgeann Ó Cléirigh’s genealogy as listed in this passage in F shows him to have been a brother of Lughaidh Ó Cléirigh; on the issue of the source used by the author of the Abridgement for this passage see above p. 84. Duibhthion A colloquial form? arna fhios sin See note on §15 above. da mbeith an tIarla gan beith ann ag cosnamh an bhaile ‘(even) if the Earl were not there protecting it’. For the correspond- ing passage in B see note above (Ro ionnsaigsiot etc.).

29. B §137. Raid into Thomond (continued). Ro sgaoileadh etc. Paragraph adheres closely to B, Iomthusa Ui Dhomhnoill o rainicc co hInis ro leicc scaoiledh da sgeimhealtaibh imón tír ina thimcheall. As fairsing forleathan airccthech ionnsoigthech ro scaoilset na merdronga mera menmnucha sin o aroile ar ro cuartaigedh 7 ro creachloisccedh leo ría noidhche othá Craig Ui Chíordhubhain i niochtar na coigcriche i ttriocha ched na nOilén co Cathair Murchadha hi Corca Baiscinn Iartharach go 158 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH dorus Chille Muire 7 Cathrach Ruis 7 an Magha ind Uibh Bracain co dorus Baile Eoin Gobhann hi Corca Modruadh 7 Boithi Neill hi Cenel Fermaic. Rob iomdha tra daothain daghduine úasail no tigerna tíre do creachaibh 7 do chethraibh 7 da gach erndail édála ag buidhin chethrair no chuiccir do muintir Ui Dhomhnoill hí tuinidhe tuir no thuim cairrgi no coilledh i Tuadhmumain an oidhche sin ar rob eigen doibh airiseamh in gach maighin a ttarusair capar- dhorcha urthosaig na hoidhche íatt (p. 254 l. 23-p. 256 l. 3). (For the substance see also F 2196.) Craig Í Ciordhubhain For identification of this and following placenames see F 2196 f. The listing indicates a circular sweep west- wards, returning to camp via N.W. i ttríuchat Cf. B, i ttriocha ched (ibid. l. 29); also above §23 n. et an Magha ind Uibh Brocáin Corruption in MS rectified from B (see foregoing) (compare ‘in Mhagha in Uibh Bracain’, F 2196). lá We expect gen. laoi.

30. B §138. Raid into Thomond (Monday through Wednesday). Boi Ó Domhnaill a longpurt an oidhche sin etc. Narrative in paragraph follows B p. 256 l. 4 f. as a mbélsgathaibh Cf. B, as a bpupallbothaib 7 asa mbelsgáth- aibh (ibid. l. 8). fíartharsna etc. Cf. B, … gabhaitt occ asgnámh na conaire tar [delendum?] fiartharsna na Tuadhmumhan sairthuaidh gach ndíreach doirther Ó cCormaaic durlar Ceneil Fermaic 7 don Boirind breacalbaigh go rangadar hi fuinedh néll nóna co mainistir Corca Modhrúadh 7 co Carcair na cCleireach (ibid. ll 8-13). gerbhó hinmhall a n-imtheachta Cf. B, ger bho hionmall ind imthecht la haidble a ninnile (ibid. ll 18-19). MS ‘héininill’ (emended here) suggests faulty expansion of an abbreviation whereby the adjective was misconstrued as derivative of innill ‘ready, secure’, but this form gives no sense in the context. beilghe bearnchairge na banBhóirne Cf. B, beilge bernchairr- gidhe na banBhoirne (ibid. l. 20). Gluaisios etc. Note the late form of the pret. 3 sg. (with broad final as in rel. pres.); contrast gabhais §31 etc. et níorbho fada etc. Cf. B, Nír vo foda an reim ruccsat isin la sin ar roptar scithigh iarna morshaothar occ tocht tria belghibh bélchumgaibh na Boirne (p. 256 ll 27-29). robtar scithigh tuirseach iad Cf. B, roptar scithigh (foregoing citation); the adjectival collocation instanced here occurs frequently ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 159 in B, e.g. combtar sgithigh toirsigh fodheóidh (B §163 p. 298 ll 20- 21). The MS offers an especially inept mixed construction, however, in which the archaic cop. form (perf. 3 pl.) is supplemented by sub- ject pronoun plur. (iad) in accordance with modern usage, while of the two accompanying predicative adjectives the first shows archaic plural inflexion agreeing with the verb while the second has the modern singular form. i saimhe The prep. is supplied here following B, ni mó ro phroind- set no ro thuilset i sáimhe in adhaigh riamh (p. 256 ll 30-31). The phrase is repeated below. ni dearnsat Negative particle here supplied following B (viz. Ni deirghenset fianbhotha nait foirgnemha la tes na sine samhrata, ibid. l. 36). et gabhaid ag cumbach etc. Cf. B, ro ghabhsat … ag combach 7 ag combualadh og cosccairt 7 ag cnaimgherrad búair a mbiodhbad durghnamh a bprainde dia naireachaibh 7 dia narduaislibh coro thochaithset a ffesdithett 7 contuilset i saimhe asendadh oro laíset a nimeccla dhiobh (p. 258 ll 1-6). i n-imcian ó a n-athardha ‘far from their patrimony’; the phrase is not in B but seems to construe dia naireachaibh ‘for their chiefs’ of the original (see preceding note for context). gurbád A Mid. Ir. perf. 3 pl. conjunct form of copula with go/gur; length mark appears artificial (cf. gur bhat in Bethada náem nÉrenn, ed. Charles Plummer (2 vols, Oxford 1922) I 14 l. 29; see also DIL s.v. is 316 51 f.)). For exx. of bat (abs. form) see Stair na Gaeilge 324 (12.195), and cf. bát (abs.) úaiti (Beth. náem nÉ. I 14 l. 9). The sg. of the predicative adj. is noteworthy here (see n. on robtar scithigh above §30). The sense of the phrase recalls B, coro thochaithset a ffesdithett (see last note but one for full context).

31. B §§139, 140. End of raid into Thomond (Thursday through Sunday). et do leig féin soir … co ar bharach Virtually verbatim from B (§138 p. 258 ll 11-14). Conmaicne Cúile Tolaidh Identified as ‘now the bar. of Kilmaine, in the south of the county of Mayo’ (F 2199 n.). ro furáil a mhuintir etc. Cf. B, Ro fhorchongair iarom O Domhnaill fora muintir a ninnile creiche a mbu 7 a ccethra 7 a nedala archena do leigen uaidhibh dia ttighibh etc. (p. 258 ll 14-17). Do thogh O Domhnaill etc. Abridgement closely follows wording of B, Do raegha Ua Domhnaill etc. (§140 p. 258 l. 20-260 (l. 4)). 160 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH trí chéd marcach The corresponding figure in B is sixty (co seasccait marcach p. 258 l. 20), as also in F (p. 2200). The error here probably arose owing to a misreading of a Roman numeral in the exemplar (‘xx’). deinmneach ‘impatient’, possibly in error for deinmnedach ‘hasty’ (sic B §140 p. 258 l. 24). co taoi tosdadhach Cf. B, co taoi tóithenach (ibid. l. 25-6). i muchdeadhoil na maidne Cf. B, i ndorblus na maidne muiche (ibid. ll 26-7). Et do léigsiot etc. Cf. B, Do leiccet a scceimhealta co sgaoilteach da cech leith diobh dindred na criche (ibid. ll 27-8). a sgeimhiolta sgríoblúatha This expression occurs in B §71 p. 136 l. 6. ina mbaoi do chrodh a gcomhfhogus Cf. B, Doionalat a mbaoi do chrudh ina ccomfhochraibh (ibid. ll 29-30); for the form of the demons. rel. pron. instanced here see above §19 n.; also below an ro cruinnigsiot (n.). co nar cumhaingsiot etc. A slight nuance of meaning divides this version from B, viz. do bertsat leó co haonmhaigin co mbatar a ffolartnadh fria niomlúadh 7 fria niomáin leó (ibid. ll 30-32). an ro cruinnigsiot Archaic use of an as form of the demons. rel. pron. before ro; cf. GOI 298, Stair na Gaeilge 276 (10.25). This is a recurring archaism in B (cf. BAR ii 239 s.v. a), also with copula forms e.g. an robtar aireghda dia chloind ‘those of his children who were illustrious’ (§1 p. 2 l. 7). Buille B, gusan Seghais (i.e. R. Boyle) (§140 p. 260 l. 2).

32. B §§141-144. Niall Garbh Ó Domhnaill goes over to the English while engaged in the siege of Derry. Do léig O Domhnaill sgís etc. Cf. B, Dusrelicc Ó Domhnoill scís etc. (§141 p. 260 l. 7 f.). co September B, o Iul co September (ibid. l. 8). Failure to men- tion that he rested ‘from July’ is noteworthy in light of the absent dating of the events preceding (see note on §28 above). Gall Doire Expected eclipsis after Gall (gen. pl.) is absent here and in the following sentence; for another instance see d’foirighthin Gaoidhiol Eirionn (sic) below §41. dá chéad each Mention of the actual number of horses occurs in B after the account of the wounding of Docwra, viz. Fuilledh ar dib cédaibh each basedh a líon (§142 p. 262 ll 27-8). et as e lá sin The account of the wounding is as follows in the ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 161 source: Do rala Aódh mac Aódha Duibh Ui Dhomhnaill 7 an toiseach Henri Docur tul i tul fri aroile isin iomghuin. Tarlaic an tÓedh Úa Domhnaill an fogha foghablaigthi báoi ina láimh ar ammus an tóisigh co ttarla hi ttul a édain gan iomroll dó corus gon co haicher (ibid. ll 19-23). October Cf. B §143 p. 262 l. 31 tríallus For pret. 3 sg. with broad final see above §30 (gluaisios n.). re hucht Gall Cf. B, dia comhdha forsna Gallaibh (p. 264 l. 2). Eclipsis would be expected following re hucht. tar Sligeach tarsan Sliccech, B p. 262 l. 34. Baile an Mhotaigh Ó Domhnaill’s destination is not named in B until after the account of Niall Garbh’s treachery, viz. §144 p. 266 l. 18. do dhol a rann Gall Cf. B, condo ratt a ainshen fair fodheoidh a áentugadh dul daoinleith 7 daonrann la Gallaibh (§143 p. 264 ll 10- 11). míle fear Cf. B, Do bert .x.c. laoch lais úadhaibh co Leithbher naoi míle ceimenn ón Doire (ibid. ll 33-4). Leithfior (MS ‘leighsior’) For comment on the misspelling of this placename in the MS see Introduction p. 90. Iompaidhios The form of the MS doubtful here; the usual pret. 3 sg. form in B is iompais, as in the passage which corresponds, viz. Iompais Ó Domhnaill a coiccedh nAilealla úair ni ranuic tar Baile an Mhotaigh siar etc. (§144 p. 266 ll 17-18). marcshlúagh etc. The fact that infantry did not accompany Ó Domhnaill is emphasised here in accordance with the record in B (ibid. l. 21). fa dhá mhile do Leitbhior The distance of the location from Lifford at which his forces of infantry belatedly joined him (hence co hadmall in the following sentence) is mentioned in the account of the Druim Lighean skirmish (B §145 p. 268 l. 21).

33. B §§145, 147, 151, 152. Fatal wounding of Maghnus Ó Domh- naill in battle at Druim Lighean (October), and death of his father Aodh mac Maghnusa (December). Maghnus … do ghoin et do lot etc. As in the early paragraphs the character of this differs from what goes before in being annalis- tic rather than narrative owing to a very drastic abbreviation of the material in the source. For the account of Maghnus’s wounding in B see §147 p. 270 l. 32 f. 162 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH Cruachain Droma Líghin The form of the name here used repre- sents a conflation of Cruachán Lighen (sic B, §145 p. 266 l. 32) i.e. Croaghan, three miles from Lifford (cf. F 2212 n.) and Druim Lighean which is a common alternative form (cf. Eleanor Knott, The bardic poems of Tadhg Dall Ó Huiginn 1550-1591 II (London 1926) 209). et a écc Cf. B, Baoísiomh samhlaidh fri re sechtmhaine ag foichill écca … 7 ro ecc asendadh (an 22 October .1600.) etc. (§151 p. 276 l. 24 f). peacuighibh Emended in accordance with usage elsewhere (pheacaighibh §43). et a athair Cf. B §152 p. 276 l. 33 f. an seachtmadh lá do Deicember sic ibid. p. 278 l. 4. a n-adhnacal Cf. B, Ro hadhnacht isin othairlighe cettna hi comfhochraibh dia mac (ibid. ll 5-6).

34. B §154, 155. Arrival of vessel from Spain with sum of money. Do riachtsattar sgeala Cf. B, dosficcet scéla (§154 p. 280 l. 19). For a variant form of pret. 3 pl. see above §27 n. go ruachtsattar; corresponding pret. forms in B are ro siachtatar, riachtatar (BAR ii 375 s.v. ro-saig). September An error for December as evidenced by the statement in B that the events occurred near the feast of the Nativity (do rala feil gheine an Choimdhedh i ngarfhoccus dósomh, §154 p. 280 l. 31). cuan an Inbhir Mhóir sic B (ibid. l. 20) i.e. Broad Haven, Co. Mayo. do cuir litir etc. Cf. B, as edh do roine a litri do scriobadh gusan luing 7 ba sedh a tothacht seoladh lásan ccetna gaoith dusfiocfadh aniairdes (ibid. ll 32-3). cúan na gCeall mBeag Cf. B, Tainic an loncc iarttain co cúan na cCeall mBeg (§155 p. 282 l. 19). The Four Masters are more specific saying that the ship came to Teelin harbour (located some 7 miles from Killybegs), viz. Tanaig trá an loingeas adubhramar go cuan Teilionn lá taobh na cCeall mBeag, F 2222 and n. do neoch bhoi etc. ‘all who were’; for Mid. Ir. de/do neoch with following relative clause see DIL s.v. nech 19.8 f. The phrase is taken here from the corresponding passage in B, in which the conver- gence of the allies of Ó Néill and Ó Domhnaill at Donegal is related, viz. Ro thionoilsett airigh 7 úaisle coiccidh Conchobair do neoch baoi fo mamus Ui Neill o Loch Feabhail co Boinn … Tangattar ón mudh ccetna maithe choiccid Meadhbha do neoch batar dogres fóa mhámus 7 fora rainn i ndochum Uí Domhnaill (§154, p. 282 ll 11-15). ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 163 Do shilsiot co raibhe etc. The account here extrapolates from B without closely following the wording ibid. l. 32 f. se mile punta sé mhíle pont B, §155 p. 282 l. 29. Do thionsgain etc. For these deliberations rather differently for- mulated in B, see ibid. (l. 32 f.). damadh míadh leó a deanamh Lit. ‘if they wished to do so’. I take leó to refer to the allies who were with Ó Néill and Ó Domhnaill. cogaidh MS ‘cóigidh’: emendation seems appropriate as the phrase comhrann(t)a cogaidh is a recurring one.

35. B §156. Sir John Chamberlain slain by Ó Dochartaigh; death of Ó Dochartaigh, and nomination of successor. ionnsaidhe aingidhe ainiarmartach ‘a malevolent ruthless attack’; cf. B, ammus amhnus etrocar (p. 286 l. 12), and co haingidh etrocar (l. 18). na ttugdís Use of dep. neg. particle na (nach) with following eclipsis is dialectal (see Introduction p. 87). an gcéin do bhói an toice etc. Cf. B, cein baoi an toice 7 an conách ag congnam lais 7 la a choimdidh talmanda (ibid. ll 16-17). (Compare the phrase cen nó beith in conách ic congnum leis, In Cath Catharda, ed. Whitley Stokes (Ir. Texte IV/3, Leipzig 1909) l. 678.) Monúar trá etc. Cf. B, Monúar ámh ba heisidhe a chosgar 7 a áithius deighenach for Ghallaibh etc. (p. 286 l. 22 f). 27 Ianuari Note absence in the MS of mention of the year of his death (1601); in B the year is entered in the margin (ibid. l. 26). do dearbhrathair Seaain Óig Note the corrupt form of words in the MS both here and in following paragraph. It may be noted that B in recounting the nomination of Feidhlim Óg Ó Dochartaigh makes no mention of the nomination by Docwra of a rival to the position, unlike the Four Masters, who record that this was done ‘to spite O’Donnell’ (ar ulca la Ua nDomhnaill, F 2236).

36. B §§159, 160. The imprisonment of Ó Conchobhair Sligigh. Níorbó cían iar sin co ttainig etc. The opening sentence sum- marises the account in B (§159), according to which the warning of a planned treachery by Ó Conchobhair against Ó Domhnaill came in the form of letters from friends from the neighbourhood of Dublin delivered to Ó Domhnaill by a certain bishop and citing information gathered by a gentleman of Fingal. 164 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH litre et sgríbhne Cf. B, do riachtatar techta a dochum co litribh leó o araill dia irisibh 7 chairdibh batar i ngarfhoccus do Ath Cliath (§159 p. 290 ll 13-14). ó easpag irisech craibhdheach Cf. B, epscop irisech catholcdha roba derbhiris dO Dhomhnaill (ibid. l. 26). arna fulairemh air […] duine uasal onorach d’Fionngallaibh The MS text here is wanting. Clearly the intended sense is that the letters were written and delivered at the behest of one of the nobles of the (see n. above Níorbó cían etc.). Accordingly, an agent word such as ó or le ‘by’ would appear to have dropped out after air which would give the phrase meaning as follows: ‘after it had been enjoined upon him (by) an honourable gentleman of Fingal’. aga toirbeart do Ghallaibh, no ag gealladh a marbhtha Abstracted from the account of B, which cites the offer as one of delivering Ó Domhnaill whether through killing or capture (cipsi cruth guin no erghabail, ibid. ll 21-22). Do luidh socht etc. Cf. B, Ro la socht anbhail for Ua nDomnaill ier legadh na scribhenn etc. (ibid. l. 29 f.). Use of do luigh (sic leg. < luighidh, laighidh ‘lies, weighs’) in place of ro la (< fo-cherd) of the source in this context has a precedent earlier in B, viz. Iar nair- légadh na scribeann dUa Dhomhnoill ro luigh socht mór fair etc. (§35 p. 72 ll 2-3). do chuir na litre cédno etc. Cf. B, Ba fair deilligh a mhenma fo- dheóidh íarsan ccontabairt fhoda i mboi: aroile dia thairisibh 7 dia oes gradha do fhaoidedh co hÚa Néill (Aódh) do chrudh 7 do chest- nucchadh na caingne sin chucca 7 dia chomhairlecchadh fris ciodh do ghenadh (§159 p. 292 ll 9-12). da chomhairliugadh ris cread do dheanamh The use of the ver- bal noun after cread seems elliptical and contrasts with the finite usage in B (ibid. l. 11, foregoing citation). ro cuir air co mór etc. The wording of this account of Ó Néill’s reaction is largely independent of that in B (ibid. l. 14 f.). dia ccaomhsadh ‘if he could’; for the phrase see B §162 p. 296 l. 3. cidh resiú ‘even before’ (archaic); the compound conjunction occurs once in B (cid resiú rofitir sccela Uí Dhomhnaill, p. 98 l. 1.) san gúasacht a raibhe The subject of the substantive verb is Ó Domhnaill, the reference being to his earlier imprisonment, as is evident from the account in the source of Ó Néill’s response, viz. gurbho techta 7 gurbo hadha ndo neach oile do chuimriuch oldas a ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 165 oidedh fodein do thocht treimit no a chor hi ccarcair 7 a ccuimreach amail do rala dó asa aoididh 7 asa macbrataibh febh atchuadamor coleig (B §159 p. 292 ll 18-21). do cuireadh Preverb absent in MS. co hoilén Locha hIasgaigh Name corruptly transmitted in the MS; cf. B, ro lá Ua Conchobair dia chomdha co Loch Iesccaigh (§160 p. 294 l. 5). L. Esk is located three ml. N.E. of Donegal town.

37. B §§162-163. Death of the Earl of Clanrickard; his son and successor joins forces against Ó Domhnaill. Iarla Cloinne Riocaird etc. Cf. B, Ba garre … an tan tathamhair an tIarla Uilleacc i mís Mai na bliadna so 1601 7 ro hoirdnedh a mhac Riocard ina ionad etc (§162 p. 294 l. 30 f.). tainig for meanmoin do ‘it came into his mind, he determined’; the corresponding passage in B begins: Ro ghabh ierttain ailghes 7 iomtholta eisidhe la borrfadh brighe la huaill 7 ionnoccbhail iarna oirnedh (ibid. l. 34 f.). Montioy sic B (citation in following note); the spelling of the MS seems a scribal error. Et do thionóil Preverb absent in MS. Contrast the different word- ing of the corresponding passage in B, viz. Ro tarcclomadh a dhochum for forcongra an Iustis Lord Montioy araill dona drong- buidhnibh … do neoch tecomhnacair ina chomhfhochraibh .i. i Luim- neach hi Cill mocheallócc inn Eas Gebhteine etc. (p. 296 l. 6-11). Néill Ghairbh Í Domhnaill The gen. inflexion here is editorial. Et do chuaidh … co Connochtaibh Not explicitly stated in B. et do chuir forairedha Cf. B, ro fhaoidh forairedha forlethna forsna conairibh coitchenna in robadh dóigh leis an tÍarla cona shocraitiu do thochur ina chenn (ibid. ll 21-22). Dala an Íarla cona sochraide Cf. B, O ranuicc an tÍarla cona shlogh darsan abhainn dianad ainm Suca ótchúala an suidhiugadh 7 an sámhucchadh forsa rabatar muinter Uí Domhnaill … ba sedh do róine ro thairmchéimnigh cona shlóghaibh soir gach ndíreach do mínródaibh maighréidhe Machaire Maighe hAoí co ranccatar co hOilfinn etc. (§163 p. 298 l. 1 f). Íarna chlos sin d’O nDomhnaill etc. Cf. B, O Domhnaill tra oro haisneidedh dhó an tÍarla cona shlocchaibh do thocht an du sin ni tharatt i foill … gorro shuidigh a longphort aird i naird risan long- phort naile (ibid. ll 9-14). Battar athaidh etc. Cf. B, Ro batar athaigh samlaidh eineach inn ionchaibh fri araill. Ba fuileach fraisdiubhraicthiuch crechtach 166 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH cróileatarthach na hammais aindrenda 7 na deabhtha duilghe doiongabála ro ficched etorra etc. (ll 14-17). iomghuin fuilech fobhartach For the asyndetic adjectival pair see above §25, and also B §78 p. 15 l. 12. co ro sgithigheadh etc. Cf. B, combtar sgithigh toirsigh fo- dheóidh díaroile gurvo mithigh lásan Íarla cona shlogaibh iompúdh dia ttíribh 7 dia ttighibh (§163 p. 298 ll 20-21). 38. B §§164-166. Niall Garbh Ó Domhnaill encamps in the monastery of Donegal. fúair Níall Ó Domhnaill co ttangattar Cf. B, go rainicc Níall cona thromthoichestal amlaidh sin gan anadh gan oirisiumh co ragbhaiset longphort i mainestir Dhúin na nGall (§164 p. 300 ll 23- 25). The object of the verb fuair appears to be the clause beginning co ttangattar, the meaning being that ‘N. found (it possible) that they (i.e. he and his troop) came etc.’ gan anad gan oiriosomh The collocation is drawn from B (see foregoing note); also occurs above §24. On spelling of the second component see Introduction p. 92. isin Machaire mBeag i.e. Magherabeg; cf. F 2252 n. Mention of the location occurs at a later point in the source, viz. B §165 (Ro lá araill dia muintir 7 dona Gallaibh gusan Machaire mBeg allathiar do Dhún na nGall, p. 302 ll 21-22). Níall go a Gallaibh Cf. B, rainicc fios chucca Níall Ó Domhnaill cona Ghallaibh do thocht darsan mBernus (§166 p. 302 l. 28). ar ba dóigh leis gan slan a mheanman d’faghail re mudhugadh diobh The form slan (MS ‘man’) is restored in the text following B, viz. doigh roba lanshaoilechtain lais slan a mhenman dechtaib 7 daidhbenaibh dfhaghbháil forra dia mbeith i nerlaimhe fora cciund (ibid. ll 33-5). tadhall na tathaidhe Cf. B, taisteall na tadhall (p. 304 l. 33).

39. B §§167-169. Fire in monastery of Donegal and attack by Ó Domhnaill. Battar tra etc. Cf. B, Ruccsatt ass amlaidh sin cách uaidhibh i foimhdin aroile cusna laithibh deidhenchaibh do mis September .1601. (§167 p. 306 ll 17-18). deighionchaibh The final syllable, abbreviated in the MS, is here expanded in accordance with the wording of the source which shows archaic inflexion of adj. in dat. plur. (see foregoing citation). do teagmhaisi no do cinneamhain etc. Cf. B, cecip cruth atrala ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 167 an do nimh fá an do thalmhain teine do bhreóghabhail isna bairil- libh púdair batar leó i mainestir Dúin na nGall (ibid. ll 25-6). eidir chloich et crann The collocation echoes a phrase in the account of the burning of the monastery in the source (na foirlésa faircsenae cusna huilibh chumhdaigibh cloch 7 crann do rala fo erchomhair an phúdair, ibid. ll 29-31). Arna fhaicsin sin etc. Cf. B, Oro rathaigset an lucht feithme etc. (§168 p. 308 l. 6 f). ro gabhsat ag frasdiuracadh i n-ubhallmheall etc. Cf. ro ghabh- sat ag diaindiuvragadh i (sic) nubhaillmeall luaidhe 7 a ccaor … do thoghairm Ui Domhnaill (ibid. ll 8-10). For the compound fraisdiu- racadh (< fraisdiubhracadh) see the expression la fraisdiubraic- thibh, ibid. l. 24. The identical spelling of the possessive adj. in both MS and source (i) is noteworthy. prablosgadh The term is drawn from an earlier passage in B §44 p. 86 l. 21 (occ praplosccadh a bpúdair). Et tainig etc. This abridges a bombastic passage in the source; cf. B, Ro daingendluthaigitt an deabaidh do dibh leithibh etorra etc. (B §169 p. 308 l. 18 f). ag comhchiorrbadh a chéile The expression is found in the account of Kinsale later in B (Batar na sloigh chechtardha mesg ar mesg desidhe ag coimhchiorrbadh 7 ag crechtnugadh aroile, §186 p. 334 l. 8). re ré fada … re headh n-athghoirid An inept juxtaposition with- out counterpart in B.

40. B §§169-171. Attack on Donegal; casualties on both sides. O ro airigh Níall Ó Domhnaill etc. Wording of abstract closely adheres to source, viz. O ro airigh Niall Ó Domhnaill a mhuinter 7 na Gaill oga fforrach isin ffoireigen do ruimin ina menmoin ionnus na fhoirfedh íett conadh edh doróine elúdh co hinchleithe co crodha ceimnertmar la hor an chuain síar cech ndirech gusan Machaire mBeg etc. (§169 p. 308 l. 29 f.). ro ealaigh Expansion of the MS contraction is uncertain; a possi- ble alternative construction is ‘ro ealaigh a[s]’ (‘he escaped out of it’). furtacht Absence of genitive inflexion here as in dásacht §43, inntleacht §44, is possibly scribal. A n-atconnairc O Domhnaill etc. Cf. B, An tan do ratt Ó Domhnoill día úidh daingininnille an ionaitt a mbaoi Níall cona Ghallaibh 7 an foirlion sloicch rangator dia shoighidh ba nemadhae 168 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH mhór lais a mhuinter do mhudhucchadh ind éccomlann ni badh moamh gurro forchongair fora miledhaibh derghe na deabhtha 7 soadh dia scoraibh (ibid. p. 310 ll 5-10). The use of the nasalising conjunction an ‘when’ is a noteworthy archaism absent from the corresponding passage in B, but occasionally found in that source (e.g. p. 290 l. 12); see Introduction p. 88. daingeaninnille Note absence of palatalisation of final of first element. The scribe of B availed of e/i interchangeably to indicate following palatalisation, hence the varying spellings daingininnille (foregoing citation) and daingeninnille (sic, §169 p. 308 l. 23). Caiptín Tadhg mac Cathail Óig Mic Díarmoda Cf. B, Ba dona huaislibh do rochair o Ua nDomnaill isin deabaid Tadhg mac Cathail Oicc Mic Diermada do shoerchlanduibh slechta Maoilruanaidh a Muigh luircc co ndruing oile cenmothasomh (§170 p. 310 ll 11-14). Conn Óg mac Cuinn Cf. B, Torchair don leith oile Conn Occ m Cuinn derbrathair Neill Ui Dhomhnoill co ttribh cedaibh imaille fris eiter guin 7 losccadh (ibid. ll 14-16). ceann agha et iorghaile etc. Cf. B, Ba rinn ágha 7 erghaile 7 ba gnath buaidh cecha cedghuine ag an cConn sa do cher don chur sin (ibid. l. 16-17). dona ttoirchar* There is corruption here; the phrase appears to recall the opening words of the passage in B ibid. l. 14, viz. Ba dona huaislibh do rochair (cited above n. Caiptín Tadhg etc.), but I do not see a way to repair the fault other than to offer the tentative sugges- tion that a phrase such as acht é may have dropped out, in which case the passage might read: do ba díol égcaoine ina thír muna ttuitiodh dona ttorcha[i]r [acht é] ‘he merited to be lamented in his coun- try if only he fell out of all those who fell’ (?). cenmothátsomh ‘besides them’; note the substitution of what is the plur. ending (cenmothát) as opposed to the sing. form (cenmothá) in B, l. 14 (cited in note on Caiptín Tadhg etc.), which is possibly intentional to suit the altered context, although the distinction is not consistently observed (e.g. §43). Boí Ó Domhnaill amhlaidh sin etc. Cf. B, Baoi Ó Domhnoill samhlaidh isin iomshuidhe chetna for Niall cona Ghallaibh 7 ogá ttabairt i tennta 7 a ccuimge dofhulachta o deiredh September co diúidh October gan nach ngníomh nairrderc robadh dior dfhor- aithmhett do denomh etorra etc. (§171 p. 310 l. 24 f). gan gníomh oirdheirc do ghniomh eatorra Compare the form of the phrase as it appears in the source (foregoing citation) and above §11 (see n.); omission of eclipsis of the adj. in the accusative in this ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 169 instance is noteworthy, as is also the substitution of do ghniomh (v.n., cf. BAR ii 336) for do denomh.

41. B §§171-172. Arrival of Spanish force under Don Juan del Aguila at Kinsale and massing of English forces there. Eirionn Absence of eclipsis after gen. pl. recurs below §44; com- pare also re hucht Gall Doire §32 (n.). Don Iohn de Agolo The name appears thus in B passim. gén go raibhe adhbhar aca dia bfeasdaois féin é The comment recalls a later passage in Bà propos of Ó Domhnaill’s departure for Spain, viz. robadh lór do thruaighe … an gholmhairgneach … 7 an nuallghubha … ro turgbait os aird … an adaigh ria nimthecht dho. Ro baoi a mordhamna aca dia ffestais é (B §190 p. 340 ll 8-13). gén go i.e. gion go conj. ‘although not’; the long vowel in the first element (based on analogy with nominal conjunction an gcéin, instanced below §43) is frequent in E. Mod. Ir.; contrast gen gorbo (below §42). i mboi Demons. rel. pron. a (= an) ‘all that’ written i is a common Mid. Ir. spelling (cf. Stair na Gaeilge 276 (10.25)) and occurs fre- quently in B also, e.g. pp 160 l. 33, 236 l. 19; for identical orthogra- phy of poss. adj. see above §39, also below i n-imtheachta, i ccuid etc. da raba The form is a recognised variant of pret. 3 sg. of atá, otherwise -raibhe. imon Iustis etc. For those listed see B §172 p. 312 ll 25-26.

42. B §§180-186, 188. Irish forces gather at Bandon and are defeated in Battle of Kinsale. Bandain a gCairbreachaibh Cf. B, co Bandain i cCairpreach- aibh (§180 p. 324 l. 21). sollamain na Nodlog Cf. B, Batar an tucht sin co feil gheine an tSlainicedha Iosu 7 ro ghabhsat for erdach na sollaman (B §182 p. 328 ll 8-9). tangattar litre etc. Cf. B, do riachtatar litre lerdiamhra 7 agal- loimh inchleithe ó Donn Iohn … dia aslach forro ionnsoigidh do thabhairt etc. (§183 p. 328 l. 22 f). do sgar i ccuid d’Eirinn ríu etc. Paraphrases B, viz. Acht chena gén co ttorchrator acht uathadh biug o Ghaoidhelaibh isin maidhm sin Chind Sáile … niro fágbadh i naónmhaidhm dia ro fighedh isna deidhenchaibh inn Inis Eremhóin cuttroma frisar farccbadh and. Ro fágbhadh ann céttus an aoíninis etc. (§188 p. 336 ll 18-23). 170 PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH i ccuid ‘their portion’; cf. §41 n. i mboi. An treas lá do Ianuari etc. Cf. B, Ba isin 3. lá Ianuari .1602. ro sraoined an maidhm sin Chind Sáile (§189 p. 338 ll 28-9).

43. B §§189-192. Ó Domhnaill’s departure and death in Spain. Ó Domhnaill do ghabhail fulaing etc. Cf. B, Ó Domhnaill imorra ro raidhsidhe ná sóidfedh dia thir 7 na hoirisfedh éccin isin iomshuidhe ni badh síre 7 ro thingheall fíadh ardmhaithibh fher nErenn batar isuide na tiobhradh troigh tairismhe i ccath nó i ccliathach do chothucchad caithglíadh maroén re Gaoidelaibh na naonar 7 go sainredach i ffarradh na druinge forsro sraoínedh cét- tus an tan sin doigh roghabh dásacht 7 mire menman eisidhe etc. (§189 p. 338 ll 16-23). dásacht See above furtacht §40 n. ro thuing ‘he swore’ (< toingidh); corresponds to B, ro thingheall ‘he promised, foretold’ (foregoing citation). na rachadh The emendation of the MS reading undertaken here is drastic but seems appropriate in the context as giving the thrust of the corresponding passage in the source (for context see above cita- tion). As eadh ro cinn etc. Cf. B, Basí airle arriocht la hUa nDomhnaill íarsan dubha dermhair i mboí Ere do fhagbhail 7 dul don Spainn etc. (§190 p. 342 l. 1 f). Et as iad do thogh etc. Cf. B, Oro chinnsiomh foran ccomhairle hisin batar ied do raeghosumh ina chaoimhthecht do dhul foran eachtra sin (cenmóthátt drong dia thairisibh féin) Remann a Burc m. Seaain na Seamar 7 Caiptin Aodh Moss mac Roibeird (ibid. l. 4-7 f.). The Four Masters follow B almost verbatim but add the name of the Franciscan, Flaithrí Ó Maolchonaire, as follows: O ro sgrúd somh an chomhairle íshin báttar iatt do raegha somh ina chaoímhtheacht do dhol for an eachtra sin, Remann a Búrc mac Seaain, Captin Aodh Muss mac Robeird, 7 Flaithrí mac Fithil Uí Mhaoilchonaire athair togaidhe durd S. Fronses rob anmchara dósomh, 7 araill dia shain- mhuintir budhein cen mo thát (F 2290-92). Et do chuaidh i loing etc. Cf. B, Do deachaidh íeromh Ó Domh- naill i lluing hi Cúan an Chaislein cona chaoimtheachtoibh imaille fris an 6. la Ianuari … goro gabhsat caladhphort etc. (§191 p. 340 l. 17 f). do fiadhaigheadh co honorach é Cf. B, fosfúair fíadhughadh 7 airmhittin moir uadha etc. (ibid. p. 342 l. 15 f). Et do thríall dol don Rígh etc. Cf. B, Baoisiomh samhlaidh corro ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH 171 thriall doridhisi do dhul do lathair an Righ … 7 o do ruacht don baile dianad ainm Simancas (da lege o Uualladolid) etc. (§192 p. 342 l. 32 f). Ba seadh do deonaigh Dia Adheres closely to wording of B, viz. basedh ro dheonaigh Día ro cheadaigh a hainshen 7 a hecconách a miscaith 7 a mallacht dInis Éreamhoin 7 do Gaoidelaibh glanFhodla ar chena gurro gab galar a écca 7 esslainte a oidedha Ó Domhnaill 7 baoi fri ré secht lá ndécc etc. (ibid. p. 344 l. 1 f). i miscaith ‘her curse’; i = a ‘her’ (as often). iar n-aithrighe díochra Cf. B, íar naithrighe dhiochra ina pheac- thoibh … íar ccaithem cuirp Criost 7 a fhola 7 íarná ongadh amail roba techta etc. (ibid. ll 7-10). Et do hadnaiceadh Cf. B, Ruccadh dan a chorp go Uualladolid (go cúirt an Righ) … Ro hadhnacht iarom i mainistir S. Fran. isin chaipitil etc. (ibid. ll 13-18).

44. B §§193-194. Memorial. Monúar trá Cf. B, Monuar tra robadh liach do shochaidhibh muicherchra an tí testta annsin ar nirbo hoghshlan a thriochatt bliadhan an tan atbath etc. (§193 p. 344 l. 24 f). muchorchra Construed from muicherchra (see foregoing cita- tion). Ba heisidhe ceann coinne etc. In what follows to the end the word- ing of the source is closely adhered to, but the sequence of clauses is reordered. Cf. B, Ba heisidhe ceann coinne etc. (ibid. l. 26 f). Airgtheoir cogthach etc. Cf. B, Aircctheoir coccthach creachach coingleacach na ccoigcrioch (ibid. p. 346 ll 6-7). fear diocurtha dibfeargach etc. Cf. B, Fer díochuirthe dibherc- cach mudaighthe meirleach mortha mac mbeathad 7 riaghtha mac mbais (ibid. l. 2-3). fear do dhing a omhan etc. Cf. B, Fer ro dhing a omhan 7 a uiregla for chách i ccein 7 i noccus 7 for nar lá nach naón imegla ittir (ibid. p. 344 l. 33 / p. 346 l. 2). fear nar léig fairbriogh etc. Cf. B, Fear náro leicc a fhairbriocch na a iomfhorchraidh a dhiubairt na a dhímíadh gan a aithe 7 gan a dhioghail fochetoir (ibid. p. 346 ll 3-5). Ba truagh thrá do bhás ag Gaoidhealaibh etc. Cf. B, Bá trógh tra ro bás occ Gaoidelaib íar nécc na fiorfhlatha dóigh ro claoch- laidhset a nairrdhe 7 a naigenta doratsat miltne ar miodhlachus moirmhenma ar mheirtnighe uallcha ar inísle (§194 p. 346 l. 14 f.). For the form do bhás see §16 n. 172 ABRIDGEMENT OF BEATHA AODHA RUAIDH oir do beansatt ceill da ccabhair o neoch Cf. B, Tallsat ceill dia ccabhair o neoch (ibid. ll 18-19). et do chlaochlaighseat etc. Cf. B (citation above Ba truagh thrá etc.). miliotacht Construes miltne ‘military prowess’ (B, see citation in Ba truagh thrá etc.). Ro scaith a ngrain etc. Cf. B, Ro scaich a ngrain a ngaiscced a ngal a ngérraittecht a ccosccar a ccathbúaidh iar na oidhidh (ibid. ll 17-18). ngeireteacht < géra(i)t ‘champion’. a n-agh et a n-ionnsoighe Phrase absent in B (see foregoing cita- tion).

PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH University College Dublin

TÉAMAÍ TAIGHDE NUA-GHAEILGE: ERRATA*

Lch 3, l. 3 (ón mbun), recte ‘(73 72)’ – 78, l. 21, in áit ‘ceol na huirlise’ léigh ‘maise agus cumais an té’ – 82, l. 3 (ón mbun), r. ‘saothrú’ – 85, n38, l. 2, r. ‘†1559’ – 125, l. 7, r. ‘bhuin’; l. 24 r. ‘príobháideach’. – 128, n69, in áit ‘V’ léigh ‘VI’ – 240, add. ‘(Breatnach, Pádraig A.) (1993): ‘Form and continuity in later Irish verse tradition’ Ériu 44, 125-38’ – 245, add. ‘(Murphy, Denis) (1896): The annals of Clonmacnoise. Dublin.’ – 256, add. ‘Anocht is uaigneach Éire, 23’ – 257, l. 8, add. ‘109-10’ – 258, l. 19, r. ‘54’

*Pádraig A. Breatnach, Téamaí taighde Nua-Ghaeilge (An Sagart, Maigh Nuad 1997) P. A. BREATNACH GLAC BHEAG FOCAL

1. airchisín (Pluincéad) (< *irchisín < *richisín)

TÁ an focal airchisín i bhfoclóir Laidin-Gaeilge an Phluincéadaigh1 s.v. FLAMMULA (‘lasair bheag’).2 Níor thánag ar an bhfocal so in aon bhall eile, agus ní lú ná is eol dom aon fhocal *aircheas ná *airchis a bheith ann go bhfuil an brí ‘lasair’ leis. Cheithre focail Ghaeilge atá ag an bPluincéadach fén gceannfhocal so:

Flammula, f.g.3 losróg, lasóg, airchisín, breóín

Cuirtear é seo i gcomparáid le

Flamma, f.g. lasair, loisi mc.,4 loichead mc., richis mc., breó mc., saighnén, casarnach mc.: drilthe, crithir mc., splang, no eibhleóg theineadh: baoghal: grádh, no losgadh grádha. flamma ignis[,] buinne lasrach

Foirm bheagaithe de lasair is ea losróg (sic; is dealraitheach go scríobhadh an Pluincéadach o in ainriocht a roim chonsain áirithe); tagann lasóg ó lasadh, ní foláir, agus is léir gurb é an focal breó ó shanasán Mhíchíl Uí Chléirigh5 ba bhunús le breóín. Dealraím gurb é an focal atá aige roime breó mc. s.v. FLAMMA a bhí ina cheann ag an bPluincéadach anso, .i. richis mc., ach, pé aga a bhí *richisín ina chuimhne aige, gur imir sé meititéis air, gur scríbh sé airchisín, mar gur dócha gurb ionann mar a fhuaimneodh sé é sin agus irchisín. I mainistir Phroinsiasach Bhaile Átha Troim, Contae na Mí, a chríochnaigh sé an Vocabularium, agus is í Gaeilge Oirdheisceart Chúige Uladh a bhí aige.

1 Risdeard Pluincéad, ‘Vocabularium Latinum et Hibernum : foclóir Laidne 7 Gaedhilge’ (1662), LS Z 4.2.5 i Leabharlann Marsh. 2 ‘A little flame: also hearb Trinitie, or hartes ease, Iun.’ in Thomas Thomas, Thomæ Thomasii dictionarium (Londini, 1631). Is léir nár bhac an Pluincéadach ach leis an mbunbhrí. Tá ‘trí héadain fáoi áonbhairréad’ aige ar an luibh, s.v. VIOùLA FLAM- MEA. Do thaispeánas cheana gurb é an t-eagrán so an múnla ba mhó a bhí ag an bPluincéadach á leanúint, Celtic connections: proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Celtic Studies, 2 iml., eag. Ronald Black, William Gillies, Roibeard Ó Maolalaigh (Phantassie, Scotland 1999) I 554. 3 .i. fÏmininum genus (.i. baininscneach). 4 .i. Míchéal Ó Cléirigh, Focloøir noø sanasaøn nua (Lobháin 1643). 5 Nóta 4. 174 SEÁN UA SÚILLEABHÁIN Tá samplaí eile de i agus ai tosaigh a bheith á malartú lena chéile i bhfoclóir an Phluincéadaigh, m.sh. a n-inm[h]igheibh6 brúid- eamhala s.v. PROSEù DAùNUM, innis < aindeis s.vv. ®GER, ®RUMNOSUS, INFELIX, MISER 7rl, ainnis s.vv. CALAMITOSE, CALAMITOSUS, COMPOS, INCOMMODUS, a n-ainmhe6 s.vv. MATURUS, OBNOXIUS, PARATUS, PROMPTUS, TEMPESTIVUS, a n-inmhe6 s.vv. APTUS, HABILIS, ainigid- each (foirm chanúna de angbaid na Sean-Ghaeilge, aingí an Chaighdeáin Oifigiúil) s.vv. ASPER, MALITIOSE, inigideach s.vv. AMARULENTUS, AMARUS, CANINUS, INFESTUS 7rl. Tá aireamh s.vv. ARATOR, ARATORCULUS, ireamh s.vv. EXARATOR, TERRIO, agus oireamh s.vv. AGRICOLA, BUBULCUS, CULTOR aige. Tá na samplaí ainm > [ïn´əm«], go n-aithnighim > [ə Nïn«əm«] againn ó cheantar Ó Méith,7 agus gairid > [ïr´id´] ó dheisceart Ard Mhacha.8

2. miúndáil/meanndáil/miondáil

Agus an focal miúndáil á phlé aige níor luaigh an tOllamh Tomás de Bhaldraithe aon tsampla a bheith aige dhe ó Mhúscraí.9 Ní lú ná atá tuairisc air i bhfoclóir Dhonncha Mháistir Uí Bhuachalla (1877–1957) ó Bhaile Mhuirne.10 Ina ainneoin sin tá an focal le fáil i nGaeilge Mhúscraí mar a léiríonn na samplaí seo a leanas:

Is é locht is mó a bhí uirthi ná easba cladhthach. Níor deineadh aon mhiúndáil ortha le tamall roimis sin, agus d’á bhrígh sin, bhí a bhfurmhór tar éis tuitim;11 ní fada i n-aon chor a thóg- faidh sé uait cúrsa na feirmeach go léir a thabhairt, agus an uile chlaidhe riamh acu a mhiúndáil, agus a shocrú, agus a

6 Gan fleiscín sa lámhscríbhinn. 7 Heinrich Wagner, Linguistic atlas and survey of Irish dialects III (Dublin 1966), foclóir s.v. AINM, téacs 1. 8 Alf Sommerfelt, ‘South Armagh Irish’, Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap II (Oslo 1928) ¤132. 9 ‘Nótaí ar fhocail’ Éigse 26 (1992) 124-30, 126-27. 10 Lámhscríbhinn in Acadamh Ríoga na hÉireann. (Táim buíoch den Dr Éamonn Ó hÓgáin, an Foclóir Nua-Ghaeilge, agus d’fhoireann leabharlann Acadamh Ríoga Éireann as a bhfuaradar dem dhua.) Tá cur síos ar an mBuachallach in Diarmuid Breathnach agus Máire Ní Mhurchú, 1882-1982: Beathaisnéis a cúig (Baile Átha Cliath 1996) 114-15. 11 Diarmuid Ó Laoghaire, Saothar bliana: aisdí ar chuireadóireacht agus ar ghnóthaibh feirmeach (Baile Átha Cliath 1935) 109-10. (Mar le Diarmuid, féach Breathnach agus Ní Mhurchú, Beathaisnéis a cúig 191-93.) GLAC BHEAG FOCAL 175 dhaingniú;12 Bhí cruaithín fhéir amù san ithealainn, agus an bháisteach agus an stoirm á straca as a chéile. Do rith fear acu amach, agus do dhíri’ sé ar mhiúndáil, agus a’ cuir clocha agus bataí i n-áirde ar a’ gcruaithín.13

Tá an sampla so i leagan de bharántas a chum Seán Máistir Ó Conaill, 18 Meitheamh 1798: Dár chuireas dúdán chun a mhiúndáil, ach ós leagan é a tháinig chúinn tríd an dtraidisiún béil is deocair a bheith deimhnitheach de nách amhlaidh a shleamhnaigh an focal isteach níos déanaí.14

Do bhí an tAthair Seaghan Riadhach Ó Briain lá air cóisir 7 d’airig sé bacach ag gabhail briléis amhrain do rineadh do Mhóirín Ní Luinneacháin … do sgribh an t-amhran … gan a bheith fuinte a slíng na a n-uím; do thug do Sheamas Mac Coitir … le meanndáil nó deasaighthe …

B’é Piaras Mac Gearailt a bhreac an chaint sin i LS dár dáta 1769.15 /m«əun|dal´/ an fuaimniú a shamhlófaí leis an litriú san, agus thioc- fadh san leis an mbunús a mhol Tomás de Bhaldraithe don fhocal (mend an Bhéarla > miondáil). Faidiú seochas défhoghrú (.i. /u/ seo- chas /əu/) a deintí ar io roime n agus m i mBaile Mhac Óda, dúthaigh an Ghearaltaigh, sa bhfichiú haois,16 murab ionann agus i nGaeltacht na nDéise atá taobh leis, ach ó Chontae Phortláirge ab ea máthair an fhile,17 agus b’fhéidir gurb in é fé ndeár an litriú so, nó, ós le hais na teorann canúna a chónaigh sé, b’fhéidir gur ag muintir Phort Láirge d’airigh sé an focal.

12 ibid. 111. 13 Mícheál Ó Donnchú (Maidhc Pheatsaí), Múscraíoch, T. 91 i Roinn Bhéaloideas Éireann, Coláiste na hOllscoile, Baile Átha Cliath. Táim buíoch de Roinn Bhéaloideas Éireann as an dtéip seo a chur ar fáil dom. Dhein Donncha Ó Cróinín cur síos ar Mhícheál san aiste ‘Seán Ó Cróinín, (1915-65) bailitheoir béaloideasa’ Béaloideas 32 (1964 [1966], 1-42, 13-14. Ní ar Coimín a’ Bhroic a rugadh Mícheál, áfach, ach ar Doire na Sagart, láimh le Coimín an tSléibhe Riabhaigh. 14 Seán Ó Cróinín a thóg síos, Donncha Ó Cróinín a chuir in eagar, Seanachas Phádraig Í Chrualaoi (Baile Átha Cliath 1982) 75. 15 Pádraig Ó Fiannachta, Lámhscríbhinní Gaeilge Choláiste Phádraig, Má Nuad, Fascúl III (Má Nuad 1966) 24 (LS M 58, lch 29). Táim buíoch dem chomhleacaí, an tOllamh Breandán Ó Conchúir, as an dtagairt seo. 16 Brian Ó Cuív, Irish dialects and Irish-speaking districts (Dublin 1951) 63. 17 Diarmuid Breathnach agus Máire Ní Mhurchú, 1782-1881: Beathaisnéis (Baile Átha Cliath 1999) 67. 176 SEÁN UA SÚILLEABHÁIN 3. aillbhil (Pluincéad)

San aiste ardshuimiúil ‘Góstaí Gaeilge Edward Lhuyd’ tugann an tOllamh Tomás de Bhaldraithe18 le fios gur míléamh ar an bhfocal aillbhéal a thug ar Lhuyd an focal so a chur sa bhFoclóir Gaoidheilge-Shagsonach in Archaeologia Britannica (Oxford, 1707) agus ‘a bridle-bit’ mar Bhéarla air. Níorbh é Lhuyd a thug dúinn an focal so, áfaigh: b’é an Pluincéadach féin a chum, é bunaithe ar dhá fhocal a fhachtar in Focloøir noø sanasaøn nua Mhíchíl Uí Chléirigh19 .i. all .i. srian, agus bil .i. bél. Tá an comhfhocal so le fáil i bhfoclóir an Phluincéadaigh s.vv. CHAMUS, agus CHEILOTER, rud a fhágann nách gósta é, ach comhfhocal de dhéantús an Phluincéadaigh a chuaigh ó fhoclóir go foclóir, ach nár bhac scríbhneoirí na teangan riamh leis.

4. ghiúch/giúch/iúch/(?) dhiúch/(?) diúch

Níl ag FGB20 fén bhfocal GIÚCH ach ‘= SCIÚCH’, agus níl so cruinn mar le Gaeilge Mhúscraí ar a bheag. Is fearr a chuir an Duinníneach21 chuige: ‘giúch, a malicious enemy (M. Folktale); al. diúch.’ Níl aon eolas agam ar an tarna foirm sin. I Múscraí bhí an dá fhoirm ann, viz. /γ´ux/ agus /´ux/:

Cad a chífinn ach an iúch tamall suas uaim ’na shuidhe ar an dtúrtóig agus a phíopa [’]na ghrabhas;22 iúch: [jux] f[ir]., duine nú rud do bheadh ar tí do dhíobhála. (Buailfidh a ghiúch féin leis sin fós .i. duine éigin bheidh ró-mhaith dhó. S[eana-]ch[aint]);23 giúch: duine bheadh ag teacht timpall ort a d’iarraig díobhála

18 Éigse 23 (1989) 131-46 (138). 19 Nóta 3. 20 Niall Ó Dónaill, Foclóir Gaeilge–Béarla (Baile Átha Cliath 1977). 21 Patrick S. Dinneen, Foclóir Gaedhilge agus Béarla : Irish-English dictionary (Dublin 1927). 22 Domhnall Ó Céileachair, Sgéal mo bheatha (Baile Átha Cliath 1940) 117. Deineann mo chomhleacaí, an Dr Roibeárd Ó hÚrdail, amach, agus an ceart aige, dar liom, gur féidir difríocht fhóinéimeach a bheith idir dh agus gh caol i dtosach focail sa Ghaeilge (aiste ar na bioráin aige); b’fhéidir gur túisce a chuirfeadh an litriú so (iúch) dh- in úil, .i. dhiúch. Ar a shon san giúch a deineadh de, chomh fada agus a théann na samplaí, nuair a deineadh é a dhíshéimhiú. 23 Donnchadh Ó Céileachair, ‘Nótaí do Scéal mo bheatha’, Tráchtas Neamhfhoilsithe M.A., Coláiste Ollscoile Bhaile Átha Cliath, 1950, 197. GLAC BHEAG FOCAL 177 dhéanamh doit. [g´ux];24 giúch: dial isea g., nú diailín beag. Is dó liom gur leis an ndial a bhuin an ainm ar dtúis. Déarfá bhí an g– róm, agus nuair imig mo ghÐ. Thúrfá gÐ ar ghiorré: airiú, dá bhficfá an g–. Ní ghiúch é ach giúch. [+ Nóta le Donncha Ó Cróinín:] ‘Toradh ceiste an méid seo, ní fuláir. Ach bhí ghiúch, leis, ann; cf. ghiúch muar giorré, nú giúdaíoch (Diarmaid Ó Conaill ósna hUláin.)’;25 Do chonnac an dá ghiúch a chean- gail me ’n-a measg;26 Bhí Labhrás bocht chómh símplidhe sin gur lean sé isteach go clár é, mar a raibh giúch eile aca ag suathadh puins;27 Chas sé an cnaipe [ar raidió], agus má chas ní raibh gíocs ná míocs as an ngiúch;28 I n-éaghmais na haibh- léise ní oscalóchadh giúch an bhosca a bhéal duit – ná cuimh- neamh air;29 Is mór an giúch (an giúch rógaire) é = an cladhaire rógaire é;30 Mo sheana-ghiúch = mo sheana-chladhaire;31 Cé bheadh ann ach mo ghiúch (D.B.);32 Giúch = duine a bheadh ar tí do dhíobhála (Beití);33 Giúch rógaire.34

Is beag é m’amhras ná gur leagan é seo den fhocal giúdaíoch; ní foláir nó téann sé siar go dtí an fhoirm *iúdhach; tuigeadh iu- na Laidne mar a bheadh ghiú- agus toisc an t-ainmfhocal a bheith firinscneach díríodh ar g- a dhéanamh de gh- i ndiaidh an ailt sa tuiseal ainmneach. Bhí so déanta ag Amhlaoibh Ó Luínse, agus bhí an leagan stairiúil, dar liom, fós ag Domhnall Bán Ó Céileachair a bhí comhnaos do agus a thug a shaol in aon bhaile amháin leis.

24 Mícheál Ó Briain a bhailig, Brian Ó Cuív a chóraig, Cnósach focal ó Bhaile Bhúirne (Baile Átha Cliath 1947) s.v. (foghraíocht Amhlaoibh ê Luínse). 25 Seán Ó Cróinín a thóg síos, Donncha Ó Cróinín a chuir in eagar, Seanachas Amhlaoibh ê Luínse (Baile Átha Cliath 1980) 375 agus n. 26 Seosamh Laoide (eag.), Measgán Mhúsgraighe (Baile Átha Cliath 1907) 13. Le Conchubhar Ó Deasmhúmhna an chaint. 27 Seán Ó Cróinín, ‘Eachtra Labhrás an Dána’ Scéala Éireann, 9/1/1953. 28 idem, ‘Béal ina chomhnaí’, Scéala Éireann, 28.4.53. 29 ibid. 30 Foclóir Dhonncha Uí Bhuachalla (nóta 10) s.v. GIÚCH. 31 ibid. 32 ibid; Domhnall Bán Ó Céileachair, Cúil Aodha (nóta 22), is é is dóichí. 33 ibid; (?) Beití Ní Argáin Bean Thaidhg Uí Mhulláin, an Muirneach Beag. Táim buíoch de Dhónal Mac Suibhne, Gort na Fuinsean, Baile Mhic Íre, as é seo agus an nod roimis a phlé liom. 34 ibid. 178 GLAC BHEAG FOCAL 5. creithinisí/cleathainisí/greathainisí, creathnais (ua.)

Bailig suas do chreithinisí – tá deire an tsoluis dóighte a duairt scéalaí mór Uíbh Ráthaigh, Seán Ó Conaill, le Séamus Ó Duilearga.35 ‘Schreibsachen’ an Ghearmáinis a chuir an Duileargach ar an bhfocal ‘creithinisí’. Níl aon tuairisc ar an bhfoirm creithinisí i bhfoclóirí Gaeilge-Béarla na haoise seo. Ach tá cleathainisí ag an nDuinníneach, agus Baile Mhúirne, ‘(By)’, luaite leis: ‘belongings, baggage, odds and ends (By)’. I gCnósach focal ó Bhaile Bhúirne tá cleathinisí mar cheannfhocal agus an sampla tá seó c~ (= giúirléu- daí) anis aige. Sa leabhar céanna tugtar ‘mion-chleathinisí, mar a bheadh ag ceárdaí chun oibre’ mar mhíniú ar giúirléudaí (s.v.). Tá cleathainsí déanta den fhocal in FGB: is é an guta stairiúil a ruagadh agus an guta cúnta a buanaíodh. Ina theannta san tá greathinisí mar cheannfhocal i gCnósach Focal ó Bhaile Bhúirne, agus an brí céanna, a déarfaí, leis: ‘miscellaneous articles that one would be doing work with, e.g. rulers, pens, pencils, ink, etc.’; tá n an fhocail seo leathnaithe ag an nDuinníneach: greathanaisí (s.v.); níor bhac foclóir Néill Uí Dhónaill leis an bhfoirm seo. Tá an focal creathnais i bhfoclóir an Phluincéadaigh s.vv. LUDUS, LUSIO, LUSUS, NUGALITAS, NUGAMENTUM; agus nõøm creathnáis [sic] s.v. NUGOR, ním … creathnais no súgradh ar, s.v. PALPO. ‘trifle’, ‘tri- fling’, ‘toying’ na focail Bhéarla is minicí atá ag freagairt do creath- nais in eagrán 1631 d’fhoclóir Laidin-Béarla Thomas;36 ‘to dallie & deceiue with faire words’ a fhreagraíonn ann don tsampla déanach. Deinim amach gur aon fhocal amháin creathnais an Phluin- céadaigh, creithinisí Sheáin Í Chonaill, agus cleathainisí/ creathainisí/greathainisí Mhúscraí. Ní mór ar fad an léim ó ‘trifle’ an Phluincéadaigh go ‘giúirléadaí’ (knick-knacks) an lae inniu.37

SEÁN UA SÚILLEABHÁIN Coláiste na hOllscoile, Corcaigh

35 Séamus Ó Duilearga, ‘Volkskundliche Arbeit in Irland von 1850 bis zur Gegenwart mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der ,,Irischen Volkskunde- Kommission“’ ZCP 23 (1943) 1-38 (31). Táim buíoch den Dr Meidhbhín Ní Úrdail as an dtagairt seo. 36 Nóta 2. 37 Mar leis an bhfocal giuirléidí/giuirléadaí féach Tomás de Bhaldraithe, ‘Nótaí ar fhocail’ Celtica 18 (1986) 57-68 (59). SEANCHAS AR MHUINTIR LAIDHE

1. Beag-Árainn

SIAR ó Árainn agus ó dheas de Sceirde Mór a chreidtí Beag-Árainn a bheith; agus deirtí go mbíodh feiceál uirthi chuile sheachtú bliain.1 Seo cuid den tuairisc atá tugtha ag Ruairí Ó Flathartaigh ar Bheag- Árainn ina thráchtas ar Iar-Chonnachta:2

From the Isles of Aran and the west continent, often appears visible that enchanted island called O’Brasil, and in Irish Beg- ara, or the Lesser Aran, set down in cards of navigation. Whether it be reall and firm land, kept hidden by speciall ordi- nance of God, as the terrestriall paradise, or else some illusion of airy clouds appearing on the surface of the sea, or the craft of evill spirits, is more than our judgements can sound out.3

Is insamhlaithe an tuairisc sin, a déarfá, le hamharc a shíltí a bheith le fáil ar Sceirde Mór, ceann de chnuasach oileán alltrach fiáin atá siar amach ó dheas d’Iorras Aintheach (agus chúig mhíle farraige amach ó Oileán Mhic Dara) i mbarúntacht Bhaile na hInse,4 mar atá curtha síos ag Ó Flathartaigh: 1 Tá seanchas faoi oileáin draíochta curtha síos ag Dáithí Ó hÓgáin, ‘The mystical island in Irish folklore’ in Islanders and water-dwellers, ed. Patricia Lysaght et al. (Blackrock, Co. Dublin 1999) 247-60. 2 Is foirm iolra amháin atá ar an logainm seo ar aon dul le , ainm an chúige (thíos, n.153). Tá gleann taobh thoir ó thuaidh d’Uachtar Ard a dtugtaí ‘Gleann Iar-Chonnacht’ air; é luaite in Seán Mac Giollarnáth, Annála beaga ó Iorrus Aithneach (Baile Átha Cliath 1941) 61. Bhí bean as Ros Cathail (ó dheas d’Uachtar Ard) pósta i gCois Fharraige os cionn céad bliain ó shin agus nuair a bhíodh a muin- tir le teacht ar cuairt chuici bhíodh caint aici ar ‘mhuintir Iar-Chonnacht’ a bheith ag teacht. 3 James Hardiman, A chorographical description of West or H-Iar Connaught (1684) by Roderic O’Flaherty (Dublin 1846) 68-9. Is fiú a thabhairt faoi deara go luann Ó Flathartaigh O’Brasil/Brazil, an t-ainm a bhí sa seanchas idirnáisiúnta ar oileán draíochta a cheaptaí a bheith suite siar amach ó Éirinn. Ní bhaineann le hábhar anseo, áfach, ach Beag-Árainn, mar atá sí i mbéaloideas Iar-Chonnacht. Mar sham- pla den bhéaloideas ginearálta atá againn faoin ríocht sin féach ‘An t-oileán atá faoi dhraoidheacht’ (thíos, lgh 163-5) a bhfuil a thosach léirithe ar Phláta 1, an chéad eiseamláir den scéal sin atá ar fáil ó dhalta scoile. 4 Barúntacht a hainmníodh ó Bhaile na hInse, áitiú a bhí ar inis sa loch sin, Loch Bhaile na hInse anois, atá leath bealaigh idir Sraith Salach agus an Clochán. B’as seandúiche Chonamara (Conmhaicne Mara) a leagadh amach an bharúntacht mar chuid de Chomhdhéanamh Chonnacht (‘The Compossicion of Conought’). Géilleadh seilbhe do bhanríon Shasana agus athbhronnadh faoi chóras dlí na Sasanach a bhí i 180 TOMÁS Ó CON CHEANAINN There is, westward of Aran, in sight of the next continent of Balynahynsy barony, Skerde, a wild island of huge rocks, the receptacle of a deale of seales thereon yearly slaughtered. These rocks sometimes appear to be a great city far of, full of houses, castles, towers, and chimneys; sometimes full of blaz- ing flames, smoak, and people running to and fro.5

2. Fear a tugadh go Beag-Árainn

Tá trácht ag Ó Flathartaigh sa saothar céanna sin ar fhear a bhí ar a aitheantas, Morogh O Ley nó, lena ainm Gaeilge a thabhairt air, Murchadh (Mrocha) Ó Laidhe, a dúirt gur chaith sé féin dhá lá i mBeag-Árainn. Samhlaíodh don Mhrocha breá seo gur fuadaíodh as Iorras Aintheach isteach go Beag-Árainn é, agus go raibh feiceál aige aisti ar oileáin Árann, ar Cheann Gólaim, ar chnoc Iorrais Bhig (atá siar beagán ó Chloch na Rón) agus ar áiteachaí eile i mbarún- tacht Bhaile na hInse:

There is now living, Morogh O’Ley, who immagins he was himself personally in O’Brazil for two days, and saw out of it the iles of Aran, Golamhead, Irrosbeghill, and other places of the west continent he was acquainted with. The manner of it he relates, that being in Irrosainhagh, in the south side of the barony of Balynahinsy, about nine leagues from Galway by sea, in the month of Aprill, Anno Domini 1668, going alone from one village to another, in a melancholy humour, upon some discontent of his wife, he was encountered by two or three strangers, and forcibly carried by boat into O’Brazil, as such as were within it told him, and they could speak both English and Irish.6

Do réir leagain Uí Fhlathartaigh den scéal ba i mbád a tugadh Mrocha Ó Laidhe isteach go Beag-Árainn agus a tóigeadh amach é, gceist leis an socrú calaoiseach sin a cuireadh i bhfeidhm i mbliain a 1585; féach The Compossicion Booke of Conought, eag. A. M. Freeman (Dublin 1936). Tá stair ‘Chaisleán’ Bhaile na hInse curtha síos go hachomair ag Tim Robinson, Connemara. Part 1: Introduction and Gazetteer (Roundstone 1990) 69. 5 Hardiman, West Connaught 69. Tá creig-oileáin eile i gcomharsanacht Sceirde Mhóir (Skerdmore). Tugtar ‘na Sceirdí’ ar an gcnuasach seo uiliug. Is Scardies atá curtha síos ar léarscáil Boazio (thíos, n. 32) 6 Hardiman, West Connaught 70-2. Is nós deireanach go maith é, an t-uaschama a chur isteach i sloinnte Gall-Ghaelacha, e.g. O’Ley in áit O Ley. SEANCHAS AR MHUINTIR LAIDHE 181 nó gur cuireadh i dtír é ag rinn na mara ar bhruach bhaile na Gaillimhe (Seapoint ar Bhóthar na Trá inniu). D’fhág an eachtra sin tinn breoite é agus chuir sí cor mór ina shaol, athrú a bhí ráite a chuir ar a chumas cromadh air ag cleachtadh máinlíochta agus míochaine: He was ferried out hoodwink’d, in a boat, as he immagins, till he was left on the sea point by Galway; where he lay in a friend’s house for some dayes after, being very desperately ill, and knowes not how he came to Galway then. But, by that means, about seaven or eight years after, he began to practise both chirurgery and phisick, and so continues ever since to prac- tise, tho’ he never studyed nor practised either all his life time before, as all we that knew him since he was a boy can averr.7

Mar is léir as tuairisc Uí Fhlathartaigh bhí Mrocha Ó Laidhe, de bharr a chuairte ar Bheag-Árainn i mbliain a 1668 (mar a shamhlaigh sé nó mar a chum sé), ag cleachtadh a ghairme nua fós i mbliain a 1684, san am a raibh an tráchtas ar Iar-Chonnachta á scríobh. Ar an bhfianaise sin is féidir floruit c.1650-85 a chur síos don Mhrocha seo. 3. Mar a chaill Mrocha Ó Laidhe a oidhreacht (i) I mbarúntacht Mhaigh Cuilinn Maidir leis an Mrocha atá faoi thrácht san alt seo tá tuilleadh eolais le fáil ina thaobh faoi mhalairt litrithe ar an sloinne, O Lye, i gcáipéis a bhaineann le cúrsaí Acht an tSocraithe a reachtaíodh tar éis Chogadh Chromail. Ba i Maigh Eascrach (Moyascragh) i gceantar an Rosa, soir ó dheas d’Uachtar Ard, a bhí seilbh thalún ag Éamonn Ó Laidhe (Edmond O Lye), athair Mhrocha. Tá an tuairisc seo a leanas foilsithe ag Séamus Ó hArgadáin ina eagrán de thráchtas Uí Fhlathartaigh ar Iar-Chonnachta: Among the records connected with the memorable Act of Settlement, the following document appears, in A.D. 1663: ‘To the Right Honorable His Majesty’s Commissioners for execut- ing His Gracious Declaration for the Settlement of Ireland. Ð The humble petition of Morogh O’Lye sheweth, that Edmond O’Lye of Moyaskragh, deceased, was lawfully seised in his demesne as of fee, long before the rebellion, of the lands following, viz., Bollebanane, Gortnecony, and Balliskey, in the 7 Hardiman, West Connaught 72. 182 TOMÁS Ó CON CHEANAINN barony of Muckullin and county of Galway; and so continued seised, till, in or about the yeare 1641, he mortgaged the pre- misses unto one Robert Martin, for the sum of eighty pounds. That the said Edmond dyed in or about the year 1662, after and by whose decease, the power of redemption of the premisses descended to your petitioner, as son and heir unto the said Edmond. That the said Edmond and the petitioner have been inoffensive, never acted any thing against the Crown nor the English interest, embraced and are included in the Articles of peace granted by His Majesty’s authority, in the year 1648, to the Irish, and constantly thereto adhered. The petitioner there- fore humbly prayeth to be restored to his said reversion or power of redemption, according to His Majesty’s gracious intention, by which persons innocent are to be restored, and petitioner will ever pray: MOROGH O’LYE’.8 Ní bhfuair Mrocha Ó Laidhe seilbh ar sheanghabháltas a athar ná tada dá short. (ii) In iarthuaisceart Bharúntacht Bhaile na hInse Tugann na Leabhair Shuirbhéireachta agus Dáilte (Books of Survey and Distribution) tuairisc ar na taltaí a dáileadh ar úinéaraí nua faoi Acht an tSocraithe, agus insíonn lena chois sin cé na seansealbhóirí a raibh na taltaí sin acu roimh chogadh Chromail. In Imleabhar a Trí, a thráchtann ar Chontae na Gaillimhe, tá sé curtha síos go bhfuair Richard Martin cuid Éamoinn Uí Laidhe de Mhaigh Eascrach (a bhí cheana curtha faoi mhorgáiste ag an Laidheach, mar atá ráite thuas).9 Tharlódh sé, go gearr thar éis dó a chuid de Mhaigh Eascrach a chur faoi mhorgáiste (c. 1641), go bhfuair Éamonn Ó Laidhe agus duine eile dá chine a raibh Lochlainn air, talamh i bparóiste Bhaile an Dúin (‘Ballindoon parish, Ballinehince barony’), thiar amuigh i gceantar Rinn Mhaoile, ó Ruairí Óg Ó Flathartaigh, tiarna na Gnó Bige (i mbarúntacht Mhaigh Cuilinn). Is cosúil gurb é sin an tuiscint atá le baint as an tagairt sa Leabhar Suirbhéireachta agus Dáilte a deir gur bronnadh talamh in Balliloy, a bhí faoi mhorgáiste ag Éamonn Ó Laidhe (Edmond O Loy) ó Lochlainn Ó Laidhe (Laughlin O Loy, ar Edward .10 Ba Gael é Geoghegan (Mág Eochagáin) a 8 ibid. 70-1 n. t. 9 Books of Survey and Distribution, eag. R. C. Simington (4 iml., Dublin 1944-67) III (Co. Galway, faoi ‘Moycullen barony, Killannin parish’). 10 ibid., faoi ‘Ballinehince barony, Ballindoon parish’. SEANCHAS AR MHUINTIR LAIDHE 183 cuireadh as seilbh i gCo. na hIarmhidhe agus a fuair cúiteamh i gConnachta faoi Acht an tSocraithe. Sa gceantar céanna sin bron- nadh talamh eile a bhí ag Éamonn Ó Laidhe (Edmond O Loy), Shanalaght, ar Fhroinsias a Brún (ffran Browne) agus ar an Máirtíneach thuasluaite. Is cosúil, áfach, go raibh cuid de mhuintir Laidhe thiar i gConmhaicne Mara roimhe sin, mar go bhfuil Baille I luy luaite roimh an am sin. I gcasaoid a rinne Ruairí Óg Ó Flathartaigh (seanathair an staraí) le Sir John Perrott, Ionadaí na Banríona, ar Murchadh na dTua(gh) Ó Flathartaigh (†1593); deir sé go bhfuair Murchadh inter alia, sna deich mbliana roimhe sin, dhá fhichid bó agus fiche punt gach bliain as taltaí Ruairí i gConamara, mar atá, Baile Mhic Con Raoi, Baile Uí Laidhe, Baille mc leymie [‘Ballinbeamy’ i gComhdhéanamh Chonnacht], agus Rinn Mhaoile ó Thuaidh (‘in Cunamara, viz. Balle mc Enry, Baille I luy, Baille mc leymie, and Ryne myll Ohuoy, the some of xL. cowes and xx.ll in money per ann …’).11 Tharlódh sé gur aistrigh Muintir Laidhe ó dheas go hIorras Aintheach thart ar an am sin de bharr a ndíshealbhaithe i mbarún- tacht Bhaile na hInse faoi Acht an tSocraithe agus gur thíos ansin a bhí Murchadh Ó Laidhe nuair a chum sé an scéal faoina fhuadach go Beag-Árainn i mbliain a 1668 (mar a dúirt Ruairí Ó Flathartaigh sé bliana déag ina dhiaidh sin, i 1684, ina thráchtas ar Iar-Chonnachta). B’fhéidir go mba le teaghlach éigin in iarthar Bharúntacht Bhaile na hInse, am eicínt níos deireanaí, a bhain Nóra Ní Laidhe a ndear- nadh an t-amhrán breá siúd ‘Nóra Dheas Ní Laidhe’ fúithi. Ba ó dheas den Chlochán agus in aice le Sraith Salach, faoi seach, a tóigeadh síos an dá leagan den amhrán sin atá cláraithe.12

4. Ó Laidig (litriú Meán-Ghaeilge) / Ó Laidhigh > Ó Laidhe

Suite tuairim is dhá mhíle siar ó dheas de Mhaigh Eascrach atá an Ros (thuas, Roinn 3), mar a bhfuil an t-eastát Gallda Ross Demesne, ag an gceann thiar thuaidh de Loch an Rosa. Tá an tagairt spéisiúil 11 Hardiman, West Connaught 388. Fiú amháin in aimsir Chomhdhéanaimh Chonnacht (1585; thuas, n. 4)) bhí taltaí áirithe thiar amuigh i gConmhaicne Mara comhairthe a bheith sa nGnó Bheag (cuid Mhaigh Cuilinn): ‘… in Ayrdbeara [i gceantar an Chlocháin] one qur; in Ballybeamy one qur; in Ballylwy 2 qurs; which in that parte of gnobeg that is said to be belonging to Gillduff O flahertie cometh to 59 quarters …’ 12 Cláraithe ag Ríonach Ní Fhlathartaigh, Clár amhrán Bhaile na hInse (Baile Átha Cliath 1976), uimh. 146. 184 TOMÁS Ó CON CHEANAINN seo d’fhoirm liteartha an tsloinne sin thuas i gceangal leis an logainm sin, an Ros, le fáil mar seo:

Ag dhul thrí Chúnga dhom do dhearc mé ’n chúilfhionn. ‘Máirín Seoige’. Máirtín Ua Laidhigh as an Ros i gCondae na Gaillimhe d’aithris. , Samhain 9, 1901.13

Níl fhios agam arbh é eagarthóir na hirise a chuir seanfhoirm liteartha an tsloinne ar fáil ansin, ach tá an fhoirm chéanna le fáil againn níos deireanaí in ainm máistir scoile as an gceantar céanna: A chréatúir bhoicht, in do dháil leat féin, ‘Dán an Toir’, Gearóid R. Ó Laidhigh do sholáthruigh. An Stoc, Meitheamh 1927.14

Mar gheall ar chomh soiléir is atá Ó Laidhe le fáil ar bhéal na sean- chaithe, agus fós na foirmeachaí liteartha atá sa dá iontráil sin thuas, Máirtín Ua Laidhigh agus Gearóid R. Ó Laidhigh, agus foirmeachaí Béarla, mar atá, O Loy, O Lye agus O Ley a bhíodh sa ngnás fadó (sa séú agus sa seachtú céad déag), ba dheacair glacadh go réidh leis an ionannú atá curtha inár láthair ina leabhar ag Woulfe (lch 579), mar seo: ‘Ó Laidhigh, v[ide] Ó Laoidhigh’; agus faoi mhalairt litrithe, ‘Ó Laighidh, v[ide] Ó Laoidhigh’.15 Seo an phríomhiontráil atá tugtha ag Woulfe (582): Ó LAOIDHIGH: O Loye, O Lye, O Leye, O Lie, O’Lee, Lee; ‘des. of Laoidheach’ (poetic); the name of a West Connacht family, who, according to MacFirbis, were chiefs of Ui Briuin Eola.

Tá an chéad chuid den ráiteas uileghabhálach seo a leanas ó Woulfe bunaithe ar chúpla tagairt atá i roinnt annála (mar atá luaite anseo thíos): They were also erenaghs of Annadown, and some of them were distinguished as ecclesiastics; but they are best known as a medical family, having been for many centuries hereditary physicians to the O’Flahertys. 13 Risteárd de Hae, Clár litridheacht na Nua-Ghaedhilge II (Baile Átha Cliath 1940) ¤465. Maidir le Ag dhul féach an míniú atá tugtha thíos, n. 100. 14 ibid. ¤238. 15 Patrick Woulfe, Sloinnte Gaedheal is Gall. Irish names and surnames (Baile Átha Cliath 1923), s.n. Ó Laoidhigh. SEANCHAS AR MHUINTIR LAIDHE 185 Tá an ráiteas seo a leanas bunaithe ar an seanchas a deir gur duine den mhuintir sin a scríobh Leabhar Mhuintir Laidhe (thíos, Roinn 10): As early as the 15th century, a learned member of the family produced a most complete course of medicine, written in Latin and Irish. Is mar ‘.h. Laidig/Laidhig’ atá an sloinne le fáil sna tagairtí seo thíos as Annála Chonnacht (lámhscríbhinn ón séú céad déag).16 Tá deacracht áirithe ag baint leis an lámhscríbhinn sin (ar nós roinnt seanlámhscríbhinní eile), mar atá, nach dtaispeáintear an síneadh fada inti, sa gcaoi nach mbeadh a fhios agat nach Ua Láidig (le défhoghar ái = aoi), is é sin Ua Laoidhigh (an fhoirm atá tugtha ag Woulfe), atá i gceist: 1253.12 Espocoiti Cilli hAlaid do gabail do Seoan h. Laidig .i. Brathair Preciur 7 a grada espuic do thabairt hi Tuaim Da Gualann in dara domnach don Gemchorgus. 1255.13 Aircideochain Enaig Duin .i. h. Laidhig quieuit in Christo. 1275.6 H. Laidig espoc Cilli hAlaid quieuit in Christo. 1280.3 Seoan h. Laidig espoc Cilli hAlaid in Christo quieuit. Tá an dá thagairt deireanacha sin le fáil in Annála Uladh freisin, agus iad ag réiteach ó thaobh litrithe an ainm le hAnnála Chonnacht. Is ionann fós na tagairtí sin thuas, as Annála Chonnacht, agus na cinn atá tugtha in Annála Ríoghachta Éireann:17 1253 Seón ua laidig brathair dord .S. dominic doirdneadh ina ionadh i ccill alad ua ffiachrach, 7 gradha espuic do thabairt fair i ttuaim an dara domhnach don geamhcorgus. 1255 Ua laidig aircinneach eanaig dúin do écc. 1275 Ua laidigh espucc cille halaidh … do écc. 1280 Seaan ua laidhigh easpocc cille haladh … do écc. 16 Uath ab ainm don litir h i seanaibítir na Gaeilge, agus mar sin bhaintí leas i lámh- scríbhinní as an litir sin (le dhá phonc de ghnáth, .h.) mar ghiorrúchán ar Ua/Ó na sloinnte; agus feicimid an fhoirm sin go coitianta sna hannála agus sna ginealaigh. Maidir le hAnnála Chonnacht féach Annála Connacht. The Annals of Connacht A.D. 1224-1544, eag. A. M. Freeman (Dublin 1944). 17 Annála Ríoghachta Éireann. The Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters, eag. John O’Donovan (7 iml., Dublin 1856). 186 TOMÁS Ó CON CHEANAINN Is O Loy(e)/O Lye/O Ley a bhí le fáil go hoifigiúil mar leaganachaí Béarla sa séú agus sa seachtú céad déag: O Loy(e) in Orduithe Eilíse (Fiants of Elizabeth); O Loy in Books of Survey and Distribution, Co. Galway; O Lye sa gcáipéis atá luaite i Roinn 3 thuas; O Ley ag Ó Flathartaigh (Roinn 2 thuas). Tá na foirmeachaí Gall-Ghaelacha seo curtha ar ceal le fada ag Lee, sloinne Sasanach a bhí ar fáil i nGaillimh cheana féin i lár an tseachtú céid déag.18 Tá an fhoirm chroschineálach O’Lee in úsáid i gcló ag lucht léinn le fada i dtag- airtí do Mhuintir Laidhe agus do Leabhar Mhuintir Laidhe, mar seo, ‘the family of O’Lee’ agus ‘the Book of the O’Lees’.19 Ach ní hé sin tús ná deireadh na haimhréidhe! Cé gurbh é Woulfe a bhain aitheantas coitianta amach do Ó Laoidhigh mar fhoirm chaighdeánach liteartha ar an sloinne, níorbh eisean a chuir tús leis an gcleachtadh sin, mar gurb shin í an fhoirm atá ar an tríú agus ar an gceathrú ceann de na cheithre thagairt don ainm atá in Annála Loch Cé (ALC), cnuasach Connachtach atá ar fáil i lámhscríbhinn ón séú céad déag, agus atá gaolmhar le hAnnála Chonnacht (ón aois chéanna).20 Tá litriú na Meán-Ghaeilge agus na Nua-Ghaeilge caite tromach tramach in ALC. I dtrí cinn de na samplaí den sloinne seo atá in ALC, ní thaispeáintear (ach an oiread leis an Meán-Ghaeilge) an 18 Ar liosta na dtithe i nGaillimh a bhí i seilbh Chaitliceach (‘Irish Papists’) i mbli- ain a 1641 agus a coigistíodh i mbliain a 1656 lena dtabhairt do Phrotastúin as Sasana (‘Eng. Protestants’) feicimid an t-athrú seilbhe i gcás amháin taispeáinte mar seo: ‘P. Joyce, his Orphans, or George Browne’ chuig ‘James Lee’, mar atá foilsithe ag James Hardiman, The history of Galway (Dublin 1820), Appendix VII, p. xli. 19 De bhrí go dtugann Ó Comhraidhe agus Ó hArgadáin ‘Doctor Lee’ ar an Dochtúr Ó Laidhe, measann cuid d’údair na Gaeilge inniu gur féidir *Ó Laoi a chur in áit Ó Laidhe /o: lai/ i gcás ainm an ‘dochtúra’ úd, is é sin le rá, foirm nua-cheaptha a chur in áit na seanfhoirme atá fós go tréan ar bhéal lucht an tseanchais i nGaeltacht Iar- Chonnacht. Ar an gcuma chéanna sa gcaibidil ar ‘Ainmneacha agus sloinnte’ in Airneán: eine Sammlung von Texten aus Carna, Co. na Gaillimhe, hg. Hans Hartmann et al. (Tübingen 1996), Band II 311-16, tugann Tomás de Bhaldraithe (lch 316) liosta ‘na sloinnte Gaeilge agus sloinnte Angla-Normannacha atá gaelaithe le fada agus a luaitear sna téacsanna’. Ní luaitear Ó Laoi (gaelú ar Lee) sna téacsanna seo ar chor ar bith; is Ó Laidhe, ainm eile ar fad, ainm dúchasach, a luaitear iontu. Tá de Bhaldraithe ag dul amú nuair nach dtugann sé anseo ach Ó Laoi, is é sin, nuair a chuireann sé Ó Laoi in áit Ó Laidhe. Ní rabhthas ach oiread, in Suirbhéireacht Ordanáis na hÉireann, Sraith Eolais / Discovery Series 45 (Gaillimh), in ann aon cheart a bhaint den seansloinne agus gur cuireadh Baile Uí Laigh ar Ballylee, in Eanach Dhúin, agus ‘Oileán Uí Láigh’ ar Lee’s Island i Loch Coirib. Tá, Laidhe, gan Ó, ina foirm choitianta ar an sloinne seo i nGaeltacht Chonamara. 20 The Annals of Loch Cé, ed. W. M. Hennessy (2 iml., London 1871). Tá trácht ar an ngaol atá idir an dá chnuasach annála seo déanta ag Gearóid Mac Niocaill, The medieval (Dublin 1975) 29-37. SEANCHAS AR MHUINTIR LAIDHE 187 séimhiú atá ar chonsan glórach, d anseo; ach, ina aghaidh sin (ar nós na Nua-Ghaeilge), tá an séimhiú taispeáinte ar g. Seo iad na samplaí sin ar fad (agus an sloinne curtha i gcló trom agam): 1253 Espucoide Chille hAlaidh do ghabháil do Shean .h. Láidigh .i. bráthair preciúr ocus a gradha espuic do thabairt a Tuaim dhá ghualann an dara Domnach don ghemchorghus 1255 Oirchidechain Enaigh dhúin, .i. .h. Láidigh, quieuit in Cristo 1275.H. Laoidhigh .i. espuc Chille hAlaidh quieuit in Cristo 1280 Seoan .H. Laoidigh espuc Chille hAlaidh in Cristo quieuit. Tá sé le tuiscint as litriú an tsloinne sa dá chás tosaigh sin thuas freisin gur chreid an scríobhaí gur dhéfhoghar, a léireofaí mar ái (mar atá luaite thuas), a bhí i gceist sa gcéad siolla.21 Is eol do scoláirí go coitianta, measaim, gur mó is intaofa Annála Chonnacht ná Annála Loch Cé ó thaobh shloinnte Chonnacht. Ní hinchreidte gur aidiacht lom, laídech/laoidheach (= ‘fileata’), atá ag feidhmiú léi féin mar ainm sinsir (eponym) sa sloinne seo; mar is léir gur substainteach nó ainm pearsanta, is é sin, laidech/Laidech (Laidheach), gan fadú sa gcéad siolla, a chaithfeadh a bheith i gceist. Tráthúil go leor tá sampla den ainm pearsanta sin ar fáil. Is in Dindshenchas Érenn atá an sampla sin, sa dán dar teideal Cerna, dán a luann pearsana finscéalaíochta agus staire a bhí ráite a bheith adhlactha sa reilig sin sa Mí. Seo an rann: Is and atá Fúatach fáid, ocus Síthchend sochonáig, ocus Faidech na fine, is Laidech lór lán-fúile.22

21 Is ái (i.e. an síneadh fada ar an défhoghar), agus ní aí, an litriú a d’úsáidtí i lámh- scríbhinní Gaeilge na Meánaoise leis an bhfóinéim aoi /i:/ a chur in úil. Dhéantaí, áfach, ariamh i lámhscríbhinní Laidine, agus Gaeilge, stríoc a chur os cionn i go coitianta, mar go mba sean-nós a bhí ann leis an litir sin a idirdhealú ó ghéaga m, n, u (agus is í an uas-stríoc sin go stairiúil is bun leis an bponc a bhíonn ar i sa gcló). 22 Foilsithe in The Metrical Dindshenchas IV, eag. E. J. Gwynn (Dublin 1924) 206, 53-6, agus aistrithe aige mar seo: ‘There is the seer Fuatach and Sithchend, fortune’s favourite, and Faidech head of the family, and worthy Laidech, accomplished poet’. 188 TOMÁS Ó CON CHEANAINN (Is ann atá Fuadach fáidh, agus Síthcheann an mhór-ratha; agus Faidheach, fear na muintire, agus Laidheach, a leordhóthain d’fhile.)

5. Ceannabháin agus Laidhigh: ollúna leighis Mhuintir Mhurchadha

Ba i Maigh Seola, ceantar ar a dtugtaí freisin Iarthar Chonnacht, ar an taobh thoir de Loch Coirib, a bhí Uí Bhriúin Seola, nó Muintir Mhurchadha, lonnaithe sul má chuir brú ó ghabháltas na Normannach (de Burgo) siar thar loch go hIar-Chonnachta iad.23 Ba le láimh láidir a fuair na Flathartaigh ceannas ar Iar-Chonnachta i rith an tríú céad déag, dúiche a bhí roimhe sin faoi Mhac Con Raoi, faoi Ó Cadhla agus faoi thiarnaí eile.24 Is iad na Flathartaigh, dream atá i gceist go mór san alt seo, an tseanaicme a dtugtar ‘Muintear Murchadha’ orthu sna ginealaigh. Ba lucht leighis ag Muintir Mhurchadha iad Muintir Cheanna- bháin agus Muintir Laidhe araon i dtuath áirithe i Maigh Seola i bhfad roimh aimsir Mhrocha Uí Laidhe, mar is léir as tráchtas atá i lámhscríbhinn mheánaoiseach Chonnachtach. Seo an ráiteas frea- grach atá sa tráchtas sin:

B’fhéidir gur chuidigh an tuairisc sin ar Laidech mar fhile leis an tuairim (mar a bhí ag scríobhaí ALC) gur láidech (laoidheach) a bhí san ainm sin. 23 Hardiman, West Connaught 378 sqq. Níl in ‘Iarthar Connacht’ sna hannála ach ainm eile ar Mhaigh Seola, an tseandúiche ar bunaíodh (i) deoise Eanach Dhúin (Annaghdown) uirthi sa Meánaois agus (ii) barúntacht an Chláir (bar. of Clare) i mbliain a 1585 i gComhdhéanamh Chonnacht (thuas, n. 4). In 1226, i ndiaidh roinnt mhór cogaíochta i gConnachta, rinne Aodh Ó Conchobhair ionradh ar Mhaigh Seola, bhuaigh sé ar Aodh Ó Flathartaigh; ghaibh sé é agus thug sé ar láimh do na Gaill (de Burgo) é. Bhí a dhóthain ag Ó Flathartaigh anois de chomhcheilg Ghael agus Ghall, agus thart ar an am sin d’imigh sé féin agus a bhunadh siar thar Loch Coirib agus, leis an aimsir, chuireadar an tír thiar faoina smacht. Fiú amháin tar éis an ama ar aistrigh Muintir Mhurchadha siar thar Loch Coirib is ‘tighearna Iarthair Connacht’ a thugann na hannála ar Ó Flathartaigh, agus níl Iar-Chonnachta le fáil mar logainm sna hannála. Is sna cáipéisí Sasanacha, mar atá, dindiúirí Laidine agus páipéir stáit i mBéarla, sa séú céad déag a thagann Ehyrconaght, agus foirmeachaí mar sin i mBéarla, chun tosaigh. In The Compossicion Booke of Conought baineann an chuid dar teideal ‘The Indenture of Ireconnaught’ (ibid. 54-64) le ‘the Contry or territory of the O flahirties Contry called Ireconoght’. 24 Níl mórán de stair cuid de na haicmí seo ar fáil. Tá, áfach, ginealach Mhic Con Raoi, tiarna Dhealbhna Thír Dá Loch le fáil sna príomhchnuasaigh ginealach; féach m’alt, ‘Ó Maoil Chonaire agus sloinne Shean-Phádraic’ Éigse 32 (2000) 23-34 (27). Tá Ó Cadhla (> Ó Caolaigh inniu), tiarna Chonmhaicne Mara, luaite sna Dánta Topagrafacha: Topographical poems by Seaán Mór Ó Dubhagáin and Giolla-na- naomh Ó hUidhrín, eag. James Carney (Dublin 1943), línte 745-6. SEANCHAS AR MHUINTIR LAIDHE 189 Hua Cendubain ollamh leighis I Fhlaithbertaigh, a tuaith na toibrineadh; atberat araile hua Laigid.25

(Ua Ceannabháin ollamh leighis Uí Fhlaithbheartaigh i dTuaith na dToibrineadh; Ó Laidhigh a deir údair eile.)

Mar is léir as an tagairt sin is fíor an chéad chuid den ráiteas seo a leanas (as an mbéaloideas), ach níl aon bhunús staire leis an dara cuid de:

Bhí an dochtúracht ag imeacht le Muintir Laidhe. Badh é Murchadh Ó Laidhe an chéad dochtúr acab.26

Bhí Muintir Cheannabáin mór le rá mar scríobhaithe sa Meánaois dheireanach, go háirithe mar scríobhaithe lámhscríbhinní leighis. Tá dhá lámhscríbhinn cháiliúla leighis a chuireadar le chéile i seilbh Acadaimh Ríoga na hÉireann, mar atá, 24 P 15 agus 23 A 4.27 Tá tagairt ag an Dubhaltach Mac Fhir Bhisigh dóibh i Leabhar na nGinealach:

… Ui Cheandabhain .i. leagha Muintire Murchadha … 204.1028

Mhair an ceangal sin idir Muintir Cheannabháin agus Ó Flathartaigh go dtí deireadh an ochtú céad déag, nuair a bhí ceann fine phríomhghéige na bhFlathartach ina chónaí i dteach mór Lemonfield, cóngarach d’Uachtar Ard:

25 An tráchtas spéisiúil sin foilsithe ag Hardiman, West Connaught 368-72, as LS H. 2. 17 (uimhir 1319) i gColáiste na Tríonóide, Baile Átha Cliath. Níl dáta na coda sin den lámhscríbhinn ar eolas, ach tá téacs eile den tráchtas (ach téacs nach bhfuil chomh maith céanna) ar fáil i Leabhar Bhaile an Mhóta (Acadamh Ríoga na hÉire- ann, LS 23 P 12 uimhir 536), lch 90c 41-d 22. 26 Ráiteas é sin as an saothar le Seán Mac Giollarnáth, ‘An dara tiachóg as Iorrus Aithneach’ Béaloideas 10 (1940) 3-100 (mír 8 ‘Murchadh Ó Laidhe’, lch 23). Dochtúr a chaithfear a rá i nGaeilge Iar-Chonnacht. Maidir le foirm na haidiachta sa logainm sin is gaire Aintheach don tseanfhoirm stairiúil, i.e. ainbhtheach (‘stoirmiúil’); féach Hardiman, West Connaught 97 n. Is aintheach atá ag Mac Giollarnáth féin in ‘Tiachóg ó Iorrus Aintheach’ Béaloideas 3 (1931-2) 467-501; cf. Robinson, Connemara (thuas, n. 4). 27 Uimhreachaí 444 agus 469, faoi seach, sa gClár (Catalogue of Irish manuscripts in the Royal Irish Academy). 28 Nollaig Ó Muraíle (atá ag gabháil d’eagarthóireacht an chnuasaigh mhóir sin) a chuir léamha as Leabhar na nGinealach ar fáil dom. ‘Leabhar na nGenealach’ a thug an t-údar féin mar theideal ar a chnuasach. 190 TOMÁS Ó CON CHEANAINN According to the tradition in the country, the families of O’Canavan and O’Lee were hereditary physicians to O’Flaherty. There was a Dr. Canavan, the lineal descendant of O’Flaherty’s physicians, in constant attendance on the house of Lemonfield about sixty years ago.29

Ón Meánaois anuas, ba in Achadh na nIúr, dhá mhíle soir ó dheas d’Uachtar Ard agus ar bhruach Loch Coirib, a bhí an t-ionad ba mhó le rá ag Flathartaigh na Gnó Móire. In uimh. 4028 d’Orduithe Eilíse, faoi bhliain a 1582, a thosaíonn le ‘pardún’ do Mhurchadh na dTua Ó Flathartaigh in Achadh na nIúr (Pardon to Morogho na doe O Flahertie, of Aghnanyver), faighmid tagairtí do thriúr de mhuintir Cheannabháin (as an gceantar céanna go cinnte):

… Carbry og O Kenevan, leech; Rob. Kenevan, merchant; Gilleduf O Kennevan, leech …30

6. Na Flathartaigh in Iar-Chonnachta

Ó lár an séú céid déag bhí deireadh ré ag teannadh le ceannas na bhFlathartach, mar go raibh na Sasanaigh ag iarraidh Iar-Chonnachta a thabhairt faoina réir.31 San am sin bhí dhá phríomhghéag de na Flathartaigh ann: Na Flathartaigh taobh thoir ‘Sliocht Bhriain na nÓinseach’. Bhí dhá mhórtheaghlach díobh seo ann, a raibh a dhá gceannáras acu, leith ar leith, in Achadh na nIúr agus i Maigh Cuilinn, dhá lárionad na seandúichí ar a dtugtaí an Ghnó Mhór agus an Ghnó Bheag. Ó 1585 ba iad an dá dhúiche seo, lena chéile, barúntacht Mhaigh

29 Hardiman, West Connaught 369 n. i. 30 Fiant Eliz. 4028 (A.D. 1582), The Irish fiants of the Tudor sovereigns (repr. Dublin 1994). Tá guta an chéad siolla sna foirmeachaí sin ag freagairt do litriú na Meán-Ghaeilge (Ó Cendubáin / Ó Cennabáin). Is féidir an rud céanna a rá faoi ainm cruitire, ibid., Walter Brenagh (‘Uaitéar Bretnach’); agus is dóigh gurbh ag Ó Flathartaigh a bhí seisean. 31 Tá tuairisc achomair ar réim na bhFlathartach tugtha ag Robinson, Connemara 11-12. SEANCHAS AR MHUINTIR LAIDHE 191 Cuilinn. Ba é Murchadh na dTua, a luadh thuas i Roinn 3 (ii), an taoiseach ba cáiliúla den phríomhghéag seo thoir.32 Na Flathartaigh taobh thiar ‘Sliocht Eoghain Chonmhaicne Mara’. Bhí a bpríomhdhaingean suite i mBun Abhann (ó dheas de Bhaile Conaola) in Iorras Mór. Orthu seo ba mhór le rá Murchadh na Maor (†1626) i mBun Abhann;33 agus Tadhg na Buile a bhí ar na hAirde siar ó Charna.34 Ba mhinic achrann idir Flathartaigh seo Chonmhaicne Mara agus Flathartaigh na taoibhe thoir mar gheall ar cheannas Iar-Chonnacht, agus go háirithe faoi urláimh ar Bhaile na hInse. Ar feadh tamaill – cé nach bhfuil an cúlra soiléir – bhí urlámh ag teaghlach Mhaigh Cuilinn ar áiteachaí thiar i Rinn Mhaoile (Renvyle). Measaim gur de bharr na hurláimhe sin ag Maigh Cuilinn a fuair muintir Laidhe (a bhí lonnaithe thoir ar an Ros ón tús go cinnte) roinnt seilbhe thiar i gcomharsanacht Rinn Mhaoile (i bparóiste Bhaile na Cille). Mura raibh Laidhigh thiar cheana is deireanach go maith a bhunaigh síad Baile Uí Laidhe (Ballyloy), thuasluaite i Roinn 3 (ii). Laghdaíodh cumhacht na bhFlathartach sa séú céad déag, go háirithe faoi théarmaí Chomhdhéanamh Chonnacht (1585);35 agus chaill siad furmhór a seilbhe faoi achtanna Choimisinéirí Chromail de bharr páirt a ghlacadh sa gcogadh in aghaidh Chromail. Tugadh ansin go gearr ina dhiaidh sin, faoi Acht an tSocraithe, seilbh ar dhúichí fairsinge na bhFlathartach i mbarúntachtaí Bhaile na hInse, an Rosa, Mhaigh Cuilinn agus Árann do theaghlaigh Shean-Ghall as baile mór na Gaillimhe, mar atá, Máirtínigh, Blácaigh agus Linsigh.36

32 Hardiman, West Connaught 384-99. Tá tuairisc Ruairí Uí Fhlathartaigh ar achar bharúntacht Mhaigh Cuilinn le fáil in Hardiman, West Connaught 52-65. Ba iad an Ghnó Mhór agus an Ghnó Bheag, faoi seach, an chuid ó thuaidh agus an chuid ó dheas de bharúntacht Mhaigh Cuilinn. Ó tharla nach dtaispeáintí, i litriú na sean- teanga, an séimhiú ar b, d, g, m, is sa tuiseal áinsíoch agus sa tuiseal tabharthach i ndiaidh réamhfhocal áirithe a bhíonn sé le feiceál gur baininscneach don logainm sin ‘Gnó’, e.g. ‘ar Gnó Móir’, ‘ar Gnó mBig/Big’. Is foirmeachaí baininscneacha freisin is intuigthe as ‘Gnoware’ (sic) agus ‘Gnovege’ atá tugtha ar an léarscáil (‘IRLANDIAE ACCVRATA DESCRIPTIO’) a d’fhoilsigh Baptista Boazio in Antuerp roimh 1600. Tá Gnoí, an tuiseal tabharthach, le fáil i Leabhar na hUidhre (LU 2910). 33 Hardiman, West Connaught 402-5. 34 ibid. 400-01. 35 Maidir leis an gComhdhéanamh féach thuas, n. 4. 36 Gheofar nótaí staire ar theaghlaigh Shean-Ghall na Gaillimhe in Hardiman, History of Galway. 192 TOMÁS Ó CON CHEANAINN 7. Muintir Laidhe agus na Flathartaigh

(i) An t-ógánach nárbh fhios cérbh é a athair

Tá scéal béaloidis ann, ar léir é a bheith áibhéileach, a deir gurbh iad Mrocha an Chaipín ‘agus a chlánn – na Laidheannaí – a mharbhuigh na Flaithbheartaigh a bhí i gCaisleán Ach’ na nIubhar’. Do réir an scéil sin níor tháinig slán ó ionsaí na Laidheach ach cailín a bhí ann a raibh páiste leithbhliana á oiliúint aici. D’éirigh léi éaló agus an páiste a ardú léi.

Bhí sí a’ tóigeál a’ pháiste gur chuir sí ar sgoil é. S’é ’n t-ainm a bhíodh a’ páiste a thabhairt uirre i gcomhnuidhe ‘máthair’ Ð ní raibh fhios aige narbh í a’ mháthair í.37 Bhí sé ag eirghe suas nú go raibh sé hoch’ mbliana deug, agus é a’ guil ag a’ sgoil i gcomhnuidhe. Tháinic rud eicínt idir é héin agus cuide go na sgoláirí eile, agus thosuigh siad a’ glaodhach ‘bastard’ air.38

Ní shásódh tada eisean go gcloisfeadh sé scéal a bhunaidh ón mbean a thóig é. Nuair a chuala sé scéal a bhunaidh féin d’ionsaigh sé Muintir Laidhe agus rinne sé díothú orthu nó gur mharaigh sé an duine deiridh, Mrocha an Chaipín, an taoiseach a bhí orthu, istigh in Árainn.

(ii) ‘An scian a mharuigh t’athair’

Seo anois, mar atá inste sa téacs céanna sin (lch 68), an Flathartach óg ag dul i mbun díoltais a imirt ar Mhuintir Laidhe:

37 Nó, b’fhéidir, ‘a mháthair’. 38 Máirtín Ó Cadhain, ‘Sgéaluigheacht Chois-Fhairrge’ Béaloideas 4 (1933-4) 62- 88 (mír 5 ‘Turas Mhrucha go h-Árainn’, lgh 67-9). Seo gné scéalaíochta a insíonn mar a fhaigheann ógánach uchtaithe a bhfuil sé i ndán dó a bheith ina ghaiscíoch eolas faoina athair. Is de bharr tarcaisne a caitheadh leis ar pháirc na himeartha a éilíonn sé an t-eolas sin ar a mháthair altrama. Is in Immram Maíle Dúin (scéal Sean-/Meán-Ghaeilge) atá an sampla is cáiliúla den mhóitíf seo le fáil. Faightear an ghné seo scéalaíochta freisin i leagan deireanach de scéal faoi Chú Chulainn i dtaobh achrainn a tharla idir é agus macra Uladh nuair a tháinig sé go hEamhain Mhacha ar cuairt chuig Conchobhar mac Neasa, deartháir a mháthar; féach leagan measctha den scéal sin faoi Chú Chulainn atá i gcló in Seán Mac Giollarnáth, Loinnir mac Leabhair (Baile Átha Cliath 1936) 37-46. Tá an mhóitíf idirnáisiúnta mheánaoiseach seo pléite ag Michael Chesnutt, ‘The fatherless hero in the playground: Irish per- spectives on the Norse legend of Sigurd’ Béaloideas 68 (2000) 33-65. SEANCHAS AR MHUINTIR LAIDHE 193 D’imigh leis annsin go dtáinic sé go dtí talamh an chaisleáin, agus bhí M’rucha an Chaipín agus a sheachtar mac a’ baint choirce roimhe sa bpáirc – lá breagh Foghmhair. ‘Má tá aon duine go na Flaithbheartaigh beo in Éirinn sin duine acab a’ teacht,’ adeir M’rucha an Chaipín. Tháinic sé go dtí iad, agus bheannuigheadar dhá chéile, agus dubhairt M’rucha an Chaipín: ‘Do mhíle fáilte, a Mhic Uí Fhlaithbhearta!’ ‘Go maire tú,’ adeir Mac Uí Fhlaithbhearta, ‘agus níor mhaith liom é.’ ‘A’ dtiocfa tú a’ caith’ dinnéir, a Mhic Uí Fhlaithbhearta?’ adeir sé. ‘Tiocfad,’ adeir a’ Flaithbheartach, ‘agus ní ar mhaith liom é.’ Chuaidh siad isteach sa gCaisleán, agus shuidheadar síos, agus leag M’rucha an Chaipín sgian aige: ‘Ith beatha!’ adeir sé. ‘Sin í an sgian a mharuigh t’athair agus do shean-athair agus ‘chuile shínnsir dhá dtáinic romhat!’ ‘Is deacair ’om-sa,’ adeir a’ Flaithbheartach, ‘a ghuil ag ithe beatha leis a’ sgian a mharuigh m’athair agus a dtáinic romham.’ Rug sé ar a’ sgian, chaith sé suas san aer [í] agus rug sé ar chois aríst uirre ar theacht anuas di, agus thosuigh sé a’ sáthadh roimhe agus ’na dhiaidh; ach nuair a fuair M’rucha an Chaipín a’ deis, rith sé. Nuair a bhí a raibh ánn marbh aige, fuair sé M’rucha an Chaipín glanta, agus lean sé é.

(iii) Laidheach Gharraí na Graighe

Chonaiceamar thuas i Roinn 3 gurbh i Maigh Eascrach, áit atá suite (ach nach bhfuil ach seanchuimhne ar an logainm beo anois) idir Garraí na Graighe (Garrynagry) agus Pollach (Pollagh), dhá bhaile fearainn in aice an Rosa, soir ó dheas d’Uachtar Ard. Tá scéal eile béaloidis ann faoi thuilleadh achrainn a bhí idir na Flathartaigh agus Muintir Laidhe, scéal a tóigeadh síos ó Eoghan Ó Neachtain ar an Áird Mhór i gCarna i mbliain a 1935.39 Is scéal é seo a bhfuil móitífeanna spéisiúla faoi chúrsaí comhraic ann. Mar sin féin ní fíor a bhfuil ráite i dtosach an scéil faoi bhunadh an Laidhigh seo ná, b’fhéidir, faoi mhéid na seilbhe a bhí ceaptha a bheith aige:

39 Lámhscríbhinn i Roinn Bhéaloideas Éireann (RBÉ ), Ollscoil na hÉireann, Baile Átha Cliath, Iml. 157: 461-7: ‘Na Flathartaigh 7 Muíntir Laoidh’ [Laidhe]. Liam Mac Coisdealbha a scríobh síos. 194 TOMÁS Ó CON CHEANAINN Bhí fear go mhuíntir Laoidh [Laidhe], bhí sé n-a chónuí i n-áit a dtugann siad Garraí na Groidh /gry/ air.40 Séard a bhí ánn bunú Normanach, 7 fuair sé dúithe anuas treasna ó Loch Coirib go dtáinic sé go faraige anuas ar cheanntar na bhForabachaí anois.41 Agus bhí an Flathartach bhí i nEach na n-Iúir, bhí sé ag éiliú árd-tíos42 air, 7 ní ru43 Mac Uí Laoidh [Laidhe] sásta ar aon árd-tíos a thóirt dó.

Bhí an faltanas curtha síos do mhuintir Laidhe, agus b’fhéidir nár mhór dóibh an tréith sin agus iad ag plé lena gcomharsana tréana, na Flathartaigh; ach feicfimid as cuid eile den scéal seo gur idir eatarthu a bhí sé!44 ‘Bhí go math,’ mar a deir an scéalaí linn anseo:

Bhí nead seabhac i gcránn ag tigh Mhac Uí Laoidh [Laidhe], 7 theigheach sean-Mhac Uí Laoidh [Laidhe] a’ breathnú ar leipreacháin a’ tseabhaic – bhí sé le-na thóigeál45 ’n-a bpeataí. Ach tháinic mac leis a’ bhFlathartach 7 ghoid sé na h-éanachaí as nead a’ tseabhaic 7, i gcead gon chôluadar, chua sé 7 shalui sé sa nead. Agus nuair a chua sean-Mhac Uí Laoidh [Laidhe] go dtí an nead – gho46 sé go mbeirat47 sé ar na h-éanachaí – cé48 gcuirfeat sé a lâmh ach sa salachar.

40 An bailitheoir a chuir isteach gry os cionn an fhocail lena thaispeáint gur /grai/ (agus nach /gri:/ ) a bhí ag an scéalaí anseo. Is í an fhuaim chéanna sin atá le clois- teáil in Laidhe /lai/, ach níor thaispeáin Mac Coisdealbha sin. 41 Níl tuairisc in Books of Survey and Distribution III, ar aon tseilbh mar sin a bheith sna Forbacha ag aon duine de Mhuintir Laidhe. Blácaigh a bhí sna Forbacha agus fuaireadar an dúiche sin faoi Acht an tSocraithe i 1677. Tá tuairisc ar theagh- lach na bhForbacha de na Blácaigh (‘Blake of Furbough, Co. Galway’) tugtha in Martin J. Blake, Blake family records 1600 to 1700: second series (London 1905) 222-4. Is do Fhroinsias Óg a Bláca, ‘oighre na bhForbach’, a scríobh Seán Ó Catháin lámhscríbhinn Ghaeilge (‘Trí Biorghaoithe an Bháis’ agus ‘Beatha Chaitríona’) i 1726 agus atá anois i Leabharlann na Breataine (Egerton 184). 42 ‘árd-tíos’: ardchíos. 43 ‘ní ru’: ní raibh. 44 Tá scéal ar fhaltanas Mhuintir Laidhe, ‘Faltanas Mhuintir Laoigh, nó buille fill Chlainn Dhonnchadha’ (leagan lochtach) le fáil in RBÉ 72:232. Fuair mé an sean- ráiteas seo ó Sheán Ó Guairim, Roisín na Mainiach, Carna: ‘Faltanas Mhuintir Laidhe, buille foghaile Chlann Donnchadha, carthanas [= cairdiúlacht] Mhuintir Ghuairim’, leagan Mhuintir Ghuairim féin ar an scéal! 45 ‘le-na thóigeál’: lena dtóigeál (= dtógáil). 46 ‘gho sé’: ghabh/ghaibh sé (= chuaigh sé). 47 ‘go mbeirat sé’: go mbeireadh sé. 48 ‘cé’ cá? [dobhriathar ceisteach]. I nGaeilge Chonamara ní úsáidtear cá go coitianta ach amháin le bhfuil. SEANCHAS AR MHUINTIR LAIDHE 195 Bhí go math, ní ru go holc. Faoi cheánn tamaill, chuir a’ Flathartach, chuir sé a mhac ag iarra na h-árd-chíos’ ar Mhac Uí Laoidh [Laidhe]; 7 nuair a tháinic sé isteach ní dheárna Mac Uí Laoidh [Laidhe] ach breith ar a chlaidhmé49 7 bhain sé an ceánn gon Fhlathartach óg, agus chuir sé síos i mála é. ‘Seo,’ adeir sé leis a’ mac bu sine, adeir sé, ‘tóir a’ dualgas seo,’ adeir sé, ‘ag a’ bhFlathartach Theach na n-Iúir’.50 ‘M’anam nach dtiúrad,’ adeir mac Uí Laoidh [Laidhe], adeir sé. ‘Is luath liom a gheofa sé tuairisg air gan trácht ar mé héin a chur chuige.’ D’iarr sé ar a’ dárna mac a dhul ánn. Dúirt sé mar a’ gcéanna nach ngohach.51 D’iarr sé ar a’ tríú mac é 7 dúirt sé nach ngo- hach. An ceathrú mac, an duine bu h-óige, d’fhiarthui sé dhe: ‘Seo,’ adeir sé, ‘a mhic, teiri thusa,’ adeir sé, ‘leis a’ dualgas seo,’ adeir sé, ‘ag an bhFlathartach,’ adeir sé. ‘Gohad,52 ’athair,’ adeir sé. ‘Well anois,’ adeir sean-Mhac Uí Laoidh [Laidhe], adeir sé, ‘nuair a ghohas tú isteach,’ adeir sé, ‘abair gur b’sheod é53 an dualgas a chuir t-athair chuige,’ adeir sé, ‘7 go ’mach’, adeir sé. Chua sé leis go ndeacha sé go h-Each na n-Iúir,54 7 gur tháinic sé isteach 7 a’ mála aige. ‘Seo,’ adeir sé leis an bhFlathartach, adeir sé, ‘seod é an dualgas,’ adeir sé, ‘a chuir m’athair chugad,’ adeir sé. Agus d’imi sé ar ais – chua sé amach. ‘Muise,’ adeir a’ Flathartach, ‘nach ceart dúinn breathnú go bhfeice muid,’ adeir sé, ‘cén sórt dualgais é seo a chuir Mac Uí Laoidh [Laidhe] chugam,’ adeir sé. Agus nuair a chua sé 7 d’osgail sé an mála céard a bheadh ánn ach ceánn a mhic.

Tá eachtra iontach ag teacht chun cinn anois sa scéal seo nach bhfuil aon sampla eile dá sórt ar eolas agam. Cuireann na Flathartaigh cath ar na Laidhigh agus déantar an troid ar bhealach a chuirfeadh siústáil

49 ‘claidhmé’: is claimhe a deirtear ach, in áit ponc an tséimhithe a chur ar m, chuir an bailitheoir stríoc ainneonach ar e. 50 ‘Theach na n-Iúir’: Míthuiscint ar Achadh na nIúr (Ach’ na nIúr); féach freisin ‘go h-Each na nIúir’ thíos. Maidir le suíomh na háite seo féach thuas, lch 190. 51 ‘nach ngohach’: nach ngabhfadh, i.e. nach rachadh; cf. n. 46. 52 ‘gohad’: gabhfad, i.e. rachad; cf. nn. 46 agus 51. 53 ‘gur b’sheod é’: is forainm taispeáinteach ‘seod é’. Úsáidtear ‘seod é’ agus ‘seobh é’ i dtús abairte nó clásail roimh é, í, iad; féach Tomás de Bhaldraithe, Gaeilge Chois Fhairrge: an deilbhíocht (Baile Átha Cliath 21977) ¤¤349-50. 54 Mar atá i gceist i n. 50. 196 TOMÁS Ó CON CHEANAINN le sleánna fada idir beirt ridirí sa Meánaois i gcuimhne duit. Tá, freisin, gliceas na Laidheach go soiléir sa suíomh seo:

Bhí go math. Ghléasadar leóthab – dhá fhear déag go na Flathartaí – 7 thrialladar ar Mhac Uí Laoidh [Laidhe] 7 ar a cheathrar mac. Bhí go math. Nuair a tháiniceadar chonnaic Mac Uí Laoidh [Laidhe] a’ teacht iad, 7 nuair a chonaic, ‘Well anois,’ adeir sé, ‘rithfe muid ’n-a n-aghaidh,’ adeir sé, ‘7 má tá aon rath orainn bainfe muid ceathar astab,’ adeir sé, ‘7 nuair a chasfas muid ar a n-ais’, adeir sé, ‘má tá aon rath orainn bainfe muid ceathar eile amach,’ adeir sé, ‘7 annsin bíodh an donas annsin ag a’ gceathar is dona.’ Bhí go maith. Nuair a tháiniceadar thriall sé héin 7 a’ triúr mac bu sine mar déarthaø, Ð siad 7 é héin, 7 níor thug sé an mac bu h-óige leis. Agus chuadar i n-aghaidh na bhFlathartach 7 nuair a chua bhaineadar ceathar as na Flathartaí gon iarra sin.55 Agus nuair a chuadar tamall chasadar ar a n-ais arís 7 bhain- eadar ceathar eile amach gon dárna h-iarra. Agus bhí sé ina throid aoinfhir idir iad féin 7 a’ ceathar deireannach. Ach sén sgéal é mharuíodar a’ ceathar: ach bhí an dá dhuine dhéag marú go na Flathartaí ag muíntir Laoidh [Laidhe].

‘Bhí go math,’ mar a deir an scéalaí linn anseo arís.

Faoi cheánn tamall blianta ’na dhia’: ‘Well anois,’ adeir sé, – ach bhaist annsin na Flathartaí mar gheáll ar a’ t-ám56 a chuir sean-Mhac Uí Laoidh a lámh i nead a’ tseabhaic bhaisteadar Laoidh [Laidhe] ar Salachar57 air, – ‘Well,’ adeir sé, ‘má bhí Laoidh [Laidhe] ar Salachar cheana orm,’ adeir sé, ‘bu cheart é bheith go maith anois orm’, adeir sé, – nuair a bhí an dá fhear déag marú acab.

Is suntasach an ní é móitíf ‘na scine a mharuigh t’athair’ (mar atá i mír (ii) thuas) a bheith le fáil freisin sa leagan áibhéileach eile seo as scéal an achrainn a bhí idir na Flathartaigh agus Muintir Laidhe:

55 ‘gon iarra sin’: den iarraidh (= iarracht) sin. 56 ‘ar a’ t-ám a chuir’, i.e. ar an am ar chuir. 57 Imeartas focal ar ‘Laidhe’ / ‘luighe ar’ agus ‘ladhar’ (= lámh). I gConnachta agus i gContae an Chláir deirtear luighe (luí i litriú an lae inniu) mar loighe /lai/. SEANCHAS AR MHUINTIR LAIDHE 197 Faoi cheánn tamall blianta ina dhia’ sin níor mhair aon nduine go na Flathartaí ach aoin fhear óg amháin. Bhí sé ’siúl thart, lá san Earrach, 7 bhí Mac Uí Laoidh [Laidhe] 7 a cheathar mac amu’ ag obair, san Earrach. Agus bhí dínnéar acab san áit a rudar ag obair, 7 sér [sic] sórt beatha a bhí acab rán coirce 7 mairtfheóil. Ach nuair a tháinic a’ Flathartach óg seo thart ánn dúirt sean-Mhac Uí Laoidh [Laidhe] leis:- ‘Well, sui síos,’ adeir sé, ‘7 ith bia leis a’ sgian,’ adeir sé, a mharui t’athair, a mharui do shean-athair 7 a athair sin,’ adeir sé. ‘Muise, deón,’ adeir a’ Flathartach, ‘mar’ cheart go mbeadh á’m léithi,’58 adeir sé, ‘mar’ cheart dom go n-íosainn bia héin léithi,’ adeir sé. Shui sé síos 7 rug sé ar a’ sgian. D’eiri sé g’aon iarra amháin 7 níor lig sé aoin fhear aríú59 go mhuintir Laoidh [Laidhe] ar siúl gur mharui sé iad.

Tá leagan eile ar an scéal sin, ach go bhfuil sé ráite ann gur sa bPollach a bhí an Laidheach ina chónaí.60

(iv) Ius primae noctis

Tá seanchas ann freisin faoin bhFlathartach (in Achadh na nIúr, is cosúil) a bheith ag déanamh an drochéilimh úd na chéad-oíche ar bhrídeoga, ius primae noctis. Ní raibh glacadh ag muintir Laidhe leis an ngnás sin. Ag trácht dó ar sheasamh na ndaoine in aghaidh an ansmachta sin deir duine de na húdair:

Another account relates how a brother of the bride to be of the O’Lee family goes in female disguise to O’Flaherty and kills him with a concealed dagger. This is said to be the reason why the O’Lees are known as Muintir Laoi na Miodóg (the O’Lees of the Daggers).61

58 ‘“Muise, deamhan” ’, a deir an Flathartach, ‘“murar cheart go mbeadh nádúr agam léi”’ i.e. muise, diabhal gur cheart dom nádúr a bheith agam léi! 59 ‘aríú’: ariamh. 60 An Craoibhín [], ‘Sgéal faoi na Flaithbheartaigh’ Béaloideas 1 (1927) 7-12. 61 Séamas Mac Philib, ‘Ius primae noctis and Irish landlords’ Béaloideas 56 (1988) 97-140 (107). Maidir le ‘Muintir Laoi’ mar leagan féach an ceartú atá déanta thuas, n. 19. 198 TOMÁS Ó CON CHEANAINN 8. Muintir Laidhe in Iorras Aintheach

Cóngarach do Chill Aintheann (Killannin), ó thuaidh de Loch an Rosa agus cúig nó sé de mhílte isteach ó bhóthar Uachtar Ard, a bhí Maigh Eascrach thuasluaite (Roinn 3), agus, do réir na seanléarscáile Suirbhéireachta Ordanáis, í suite idir Garraí na Graighe agus Pollach (Roinn 7 (iii), thuas), nó b’fhéidir í ina cuid díobh. Níl a fhios againn ar fhan Éamonn Ó Laidhe i Maigh Eascrach nuair a chuir sé ‘Bollebanane, Gortnecony, and Balliskey’ faoi mhorgáiste ag an Máirtíneach. Is cosúil gur aistrigh Mrocha, mac Éamoinn Uí Laidhe, go hIorras Aintheach uair eicínt, mar gur léir as tuairisc Ruairí Uí Fhlathartaigh (Roinn 2, thuas) gur in Iorras Aintheach a bhí sé nuair a shamhlaigh sé (nó dúirt sé) gur fuadaíodh go Beag-Árainn é.

(i) Tá mír áirithe seanchais ar fáil a léiríonn gur chuir cuid de mhuintir Laidhe an Rosa fúthu thiar in Iorras Aintheach; agus is cinnte go mba de bharr chailliúna a seilbhe leis na Máirtínigh a tharla sin. Tá an mhír spéisiúil seanchais sin curtha ar fáil dom ag Seán Ó Guairim, Roisín na Mainiach, Carna, mar seo:

Bhí bean de mhuintir Laidhe ar an mbaile seo (Roisín na Maineach) os cionn 100 bliain ó shin. Bairbre Mhorgan a thug- taí uirthi. Is éard a bhíodh sí a rá ‘Is de mhuintir Laidhe as Garraí na Graidhe mise’. Is le leithead a bhí sí á rá mar is duine ardnósach a bhí inti. Tá mé ag ceapadh gur in Uachtar Ard atá Garraí na Graidhe.

Léiríonn an tagairt sin agus an tagairt do ‘Laidheach Gharraí na Graighe’ (Roinn 7, (iii) thuas) gur cosúil go mba i nGarraí na Graighe sa Ros a chuir taoiseach Mhuintir Laidhe faoi nuair a chuaigh an dream sin siar thar loch, i gcuideachta na bhFlathartach táimid i ndáil le bheith cinnte. Ba deireanaí Morgan ná Morogh(e) mar leagan ‘Béarla’ ar Mhurchadh, ainm a bhí ag imeacht le Muintir Laidhe. Chomh maith le Mrocha (an Dochtúr) Ó Laidhe, bhí ann freisin tamall eicínt roimhe sin an phearsa mhór údan sa mbéaloideas a dtugtaí ‘Murchadh an Chaipín’ air.62

(ii) Thart ar an am céanna a raibh Bairbre Mhorgan beo (mír (i) 62 An gaiscíoch de Mhuintir Laidhe atá luaite thuas, n. 38 SEANCHAS AR MHUINTIR LAIDHE 199 thuas) bhí fear a raibh Séamus Ó Laidhe air i gCill Chiaráin. B’eisean cléireach an tséipéil nuair a tháinig Jeremiah Curtin, béaloideasaí Meiriceánach, thart an bealach sin i ndeireadh an naoú céid déag. Ag tagairt do Sheán Ó Briain, seanchaí as Doire Iorrais in Iorras Aithneach, cuireann Seán Mac Giollarnáth an suíomh stairiúil seo ós ár gcomhair: Nuair a bhí sé ina fhear óg tháinig Curtin, an Meireacánch, go Cill Chiaráin ag bailiú béaloideasa. Chuala sé tuairisg ar Sheán Ó Briain, go raibh sgéalta aige. Ní raibh Béarla ag Seán, agus ní raibh Gaedhilg ag an Meireacánach mara raibh corr-fhocal aige. Bhí fear teangadh aige a thug Seán go dtí é. Séamus Ó Laidhe, cléireach an tséipéil, an fear sin. Shuidh an triúr le chéile i dteach i gCill Chiaráin. Tosuigheadh ar an sgéalaidheacht. Do réir mar a bhíodh sgéal dá inseacht ag Seán bhíodh Séamus Ó Laidhe ag cur Béarla air, agus bhíodh Curtin dá sgríobh.63

(iii) Bhí fear eile de mhuintir Laidhe a raibh Labhcás air i sean- phobal Mhaorais (paróistí Chloch na Rón agus Charna anois) thart ar bhliain na bhFrancach. Tharla go raibh lenár linn féin sliocht gar- iníne leis i Ros Muc, ar an teaghlach aithnidiúil sin de shloinne Maude i gCill Bhriocáin. Seo mar a tharla sin: Lúcás Ó Laidhe bhí sé ionann is ina dhochtúr nuair ab éigean dó gul ar a theicheadh. Tháinig sé go dtí an Áird os cionn céad bliain ó shoin go maith. Shocraigh sé faoi ann agus phós sé Eilís Nic Dhonnchadha, inghean le Maoilre mhac Risteáird agus le Máire Laidhléis. Bean uasal a bhí i Máire Laidhléis. Bhí beirt mhac agus inghean ag Lúcás agus Eilís, Brian, Pádhraic agus Máire. Bhí bád seoil ag Brian, ‘an tÓ Conaill’. Le linn Ó Conaill a bheith i n-árd-réim bhí Brian ann. Phós Máire agus bhí inghean aice a phós athair Sheosaimh Mád i gCill Bricin, Rosmuc.64 63 Mac Giollarnáth, Loinnir mac Leabhair, lgh xv-xvi.Tá na leaganachaí Béarla de cheithre cinn de na scéalta a tóigeadh síos ar an ócáid sin i gCill Chiaráin foilsithe in Jeremiah Curtin, Hero-tales of Ireland (London 1894). 64 Mac Giollarnáth, Annála beaga 221. Maidir le Lúcás, ní hí sin an fhoirm a bhí, ná atá, le cloisteáil in Iorras Aintheach ach Labhcás (agus freisin Liúc). Tá trácht sa seanchas i gCarna fós ar ‘mhac Bhriain Uí Laidhe’, arbh ‘an-fhear farraige a bhí ann’. Chaith sé tamall ar scoil leighis: ‘Tá mise ag ceapadh gur san Aird Thoir anseo in áit eicínt a tóigeadh é nó a rugadh é ar chaoi ar bich, ach bhí sé i gcoláiste dochtúra. Bhí go leór scoile aige, fuair sé coláiste le haighidh dochtúra ach ní dheachaigh sé ‘un cinn ro-fhada leis an scoil’, Hartmann et al., Airneán ¤3040. 200 TOMÁS Ó CON CHEANAINN Ba é ‘athair Sheosaimh Mád’ thuasluaite sin-seanathair Chaitlín Maude (†1982), file agus amhránaí. Níl aon duine de shloinne Maude fágtha i Ros Muc agus ní raibh ach an t-aon teaghlach amháin sin den sloinne san áit.

(iv) Scéal faoi Bhrian Ó Laidhe, mac Labhcáis thuasluaite. Seo scéal a léiríonn uaisleacht an Bhriain sin, a insíonn mar a shábháil sé Nuala Sheoige, bean Thomáis Mhic Dhonnchadha agus máthair chloinne, a bhí daortha chun báis i mbliain a 1835 nó 1836 ag cumann rúnda a dtugtaí ‘Na Toraidhthe’ orthu, faoi chúléisteacht a rinne sí ar chuid dá n-imeachtaí:

Chonnaic an bhean an stráinséar ag caint le n-a fear. Bhí fhios aice go raibh Tomás ag imeacht leis na Toraidhthe agus gur ina choinne a tháinig an fear seo, mar bhí sé tamall ó láthair, isteach ón gCaiseal … D’éaluigh sí ar chúla an chlaidhe ag éis- teacht leob … Chonaic an stráinséar í ag imtheacht … D’aithin sí féin go raibh an tuagh bháis os a cionn agus d’imigh sí as an teach … Nuair a tháinig sí abhaile agus gan mórán dá fhonn uirthe bhí Tomás tar éis éirghe. ‘Is tú an bhean is ádhmhala ar do chineadh,’ adeir sé. ‘Bheadhthá marbh aréir dá bhfáightí greim sa teach ort, agus ní raibh mise i ndon aon mhaith a dhéanamh dhuit. Caithfidh tú mionnú anois nach labhróchaidh tú choidhche ar aon fhocal dá gcuala tú!’ … Badh é Brian Ó Laidhe, mac ‘an dochtúra’, a chuir scéal chuice imeacht as an teach an oidhche a raibh na Toraidhthe le teacht. Bhí Brian ina Thoraidhe é féin agus chuala sé an chomhairle a bhí déanta acab …65

(v) Seo cuid den tuairisc a fuair Seán Mac Giollarnáth ó Phádraic Mhac Dhonnchadha, An Coillín, Carna, ar mháistir scoile de mhuin- tir Laidhe a bhíodh ag teagasc ar na hAirde, siar ó bhaile Charna:

An Máighistir Ó Laidhe Tháinig máighistir de mhuintir Laidhe do’n Áird fadó ag múineadh sgoile. Brian Ó Laidhe. Tá céad bliain ó bhí sé ann. 65 ‘Toraidhthe i nIorrus Aithneach’ in Mac Giollarnáth, Annála beaga 85-9; agus lch 101. Cumann rúnda a bhí sna ‘Toraidhthe’ nó na ‘Terries’, a bhí in aghaidh lucht rachmais. Bhíodar láidir i gceantar Chloch na Rón agus in Iorras Aintheach go luath sa naoú céad déag. Tá roinnt tráchta orthu (mar a mheabhraigh Beairtle Ó Conaire dom) ag James Berry (1842-1914) in Tales of the West of Ireland eag. Gertrude M. Horgan (Dublin 1966; Gerrards Cross, 1988) 179-80. SEANCHAS AR MHUINTIR LAIDHE 201 Bhíodh sé ag múineadh Gaedhilge. Bhí go leor de na sean- daoine i ndon ’chuile leabhar Gaedhilge a léigheadh de bharr Mhic Uí Laidhe. Idir an dá Áird bhí duine ar bith a thogair é i ndon Gaedhilge a léigheadh agus bhí daoine ar an gCoillín ag fóghluim uaidh … Nuair a tháinig an droch-shaoghal b’éigean do’n mháighistir imtheacht. Níor fhága sé teach ná clann ina dhiaidh.66

(vi) Seo freisin dhá mhír sheanchais a fuair an tAthair Éamonn Ó Conghaile, Tiar-Ní, Leitir Móir, i bPobal Charna agus a thug sé do Bheairtle Ó Conaire, múinteoir scoile, An Spidéal, le haghaidh cus- póra an ailt seo agamsa:

(a) Bhí duine de mhuintir Laidhe, Muiris, ina dhochtúr ag na Flathartaigh a raibh caisleán acu ar an Aird Thoir. Bhí mac don Mhuiris seo, Roibeard, mór le Thomas Addis Emmet agus bhí sé ina mhac léinn i gColáiste na Tríonóide le Robert Emmet. (b) Ba den mhuintir chéanna Seán Ó Laidhe, an saor báid as Carna a rinne an tO’Halloran, ‘bád mór’ a bhí déanta ar mhúnla a chuirfeadh ar a cumas na cosa thabhairt ó na cutters. Ar an múnla céanna a rinneadh an tO’Connell, ach í 46 troigh, dhá orlach níos faide!

Is cinnte go mba fear gaoil leis an Seán seo an Brian a raibh an ‘tÓ Conaill’ aige; féach thuas (iii) sa Roinn seo. Tá tuilleadh seanchais faoin O’Halloran tugtha in Airneán ¤¤8294-341.67

(vii) ‘Turas Shéamuis go Geansa’. Sin scéal faoi chaiptín loinge de mhuintir Laidhe a d’imigh le lucht éadaigh galánta a bhí sé a thabhairt abhaile as Geansa do Shean-tSéamus Mac Donnchadha. D’éirigh stoirm mhór agus ruaigeadh an bád suas taobh thoir d’Éirinn. Bhuail tinneas Mac Donnchadha agus b’éigean é a thabh- airt i dtír as an soitheach. Tugadh isteach i dteach é, áit a ndearnadh é a ghiollaíocht go ceann roinnt seachtainí; ach mo léan –

nuair a d’éirigh sé bhí an soitheach, na h-earraidhe is ’chuile shórt imighthe agus ó’n lá sin níor fritheadh aon tuairisg ar Mhac Uí Laidhe, an caiptín, ná ar an earradh. Fágadh Sean- tSéamus ar an talamh tirim ansin gan pingin ina phóca ná gail 66 Mac Giollarnáth, Annála beaga 169-70. 67 Níl sé ráite anseo cé rinne an tO’Halloran. 202 TOMÁS Ó CON CHEANAINN ina phíopa … Ariamh ó shoin tá sé ina shean-fhocal againn: ‘Turas Shéamuis go Geansa’.68

(viii) Más fíor don scéal a tógadh ó Éamonn a Búrc (thíos, Roinn 11) ba i Leitir Deiscirt, siar ó Charna, a bhí ‘Mac Uí Laidhe’ ina chó- naí san am ar fuadaíodh go Beag-Árainn é (§4); agus do réir leagan Ruairí Uí Fhlathartaigh freisin ba in Iorras Aintheach (in Irrosainhagh) a bhí Mrocha Ó Laidhe (Morogh O Ley) san am ar dhúirt sé féin gur fuadaíodh isteach é. Tá teaghlaigh de mhuintir Laidhe le fáil go fairsing in Iorras Aintheach agus i n-áiteachaí eile in Iar-Chonnachta i gcónaí, ach is léir as Leabhar Teileafóin Cheantar 07/09 (2001-2002) gur Lee an leagan oifigiúil atá ag a mbunáite ar a sloinne, mar is amhlaidh atá in áiteachaí eile i gConnachta. Is cosúil gur i gceangal le gabháltas na bhFlathartach ar Iar-Chonnachta ar fad a scaip na Laidhigh siar go hIorrus Aintheach agus go Conmhaicne Mara (Conamara), dhá dhúiche ar lonnaigh aicmí láidre de na Flathartaigh iontu. Is dóigh gur féidir a rá, ar an bhfianaise atá curtha síos sa Roinn seo, gur chuir Muintir Laidhe go mór le saoithiúlacht Iar-Chonnacht sa seachtú agus san ochtú céad déag. Ní hionadh, b’fhéidir, buanna a bheith ag rith leo agus an seasamh mór a bhí acu mar eaglaisigh agus mar lucht leighis sa Meánaois, mar atá a fhios againn as na hannála, as na ginealaigh, agus as Orduithe Éilíse.

9. Fuadach Mhrocha Uí Laidhe go Beag-Árainn

Leagan I: An achoimre atá tugtha ag Ruairí Ó Flathartaigh Tá sé le tuiscint as an gcaint seo a leanas ag Ó hArgadáin gur sa leagan atá tugtha ag Ó Flathartaigh ina thráchtas ar Iar-Chonnachta atá substaint an scéil bhunaidh le fáil:

The curious story here related is still remembered, but it appears to have received some additional embellishments from fancy. One of these is the introduction of an incident which ren- ders our author’s narrative complete. It is, that Morogh O’Ley received a book from one of the inhabitants of O’Brazil, with the injunction not to look into it for seven years.This injunction he faithfully obeyed; and when, at the end of the time

68 Mac Giollarnáth, Annála beaga 152-5. SEANCHAS AR MHUINTIR LAIDHE 203 prescribed, he opened the book, he at once became indued with the gift of healing, and began to practise surgery and physic with wonderful success.69

B’fhéidir gurbh inmheasta as cuid den tuairisc atá sna leaganachaí béaloidis go bhfuil lúb ar lár fágtha ag Ruairí Ó Flathartaigh sa scéal agus gan aon tagairt a bheith aige don leabhar leighis a bhí ráite a fuair Mrocha Ó Laidhe. Is deacair a chreidiúint nach raibh tagairt d’aon leabhar sa leagan bunúsach (an leagan, is dóigh, a chum Murcha Ó Laidhe é féin). As an gcaint seo ag Ó Flathartaigh, by that means, about seaven or eight years after, he began to practise both chirurgery and phisick, mheasfaí go bhféadfadh sé go raibh trácht ar an leabhar sa scéal seo ó thús. Tá tuairisc sin Uí Fhlathartaigh (thuas, Roinn 1) ar thuras Mhrocha go Beag-Árainn ag freagairt cuid mhaith do leagan Éamoinn a Búrc atá i gcló anseo thíos (Roinn 11). Ní féidir a rá go cinnte cé acu is maise bhreise as an tsamhlaíocht (received some additional embellishments from fancy) atá sa mbéaloideas faoin leabhar nó an amhlaidh a d’fhág Ó Flathartaigh an chuid sin ar lár.

Leagan II (a) Inseacht Phádraic Mhic Con Iomaire70 I leagan eile den tuairisc ar fhuadach Mhrocha Uí Laidhe go ríocht na sí anonn thar uisce, a chuir Seán Mac Giollarnáth in eagar ó inseacht Phádraic Mhic Con Iomaire as an gCoillín, Carna, is mar chúiteamh as staonadh óna phíopa a dheargadh le tine shaolta, mar atá, cloch thine, a fuair Mrocha Ó Laidhe an leabhar:

69 Hardiman, West Connaught 70, n. t. 70 Mac Giollarnáth, ‘An dara tiachóg as Iorras Aithneach’ (mír 8, ‘Murchadh Ó Laidhe’). I nótaí ó Eagarthóir (‘Editorial notes’) ar idem, ‘Tiachóg ó Iorrus Aintheach’, Béaloideas 3 (1932) 467-502, tá an tagairt seo do Phádraic Mac Con Iomaire (ach a shloinne curtha as a riocht anseo): ‘Attention is directed to Nos. 1 and 2 in which a gifted storyteller, Pádraic Mac an Iomaire, describes visits made by him to a holy-well Ð Tobar Rí an Domhnaigh – and to Cruach Pháraic, the famous seat of in the West’; cf. Mac Giollarnáth, Annála beaga 338-44. Tá tuairisc ghearr tugtha ag Liam Mac Coisdeala ar Pháraic (sic) in ‘Im’ bhailitheoir béaloideasa’ Béaloideas 16 (1946 [1948]) 141-71 (147). Bhí seanchaí maith de dheartháir ag Pádraig a raibh Tomás air agus a bhí ina chónaí ar an gCoillín freisin. Tá tuairisc tugtha ag Mac Giollarnáth airsean i Loinnir mac Leabhair, lgh xxi-xxiv. Bhí clann agus garchlann Phádraig agus clann Thomáis ar an lucht eolais a bhí ag Brian Ó Curnáin le haghaidh a chuid taighde dhomhain ar Ghaeilge an cheantair sin; féach idem, ‘Draíocht uimhreacha: anailís shóinseálach ar dheilbhíocht iolra an ain- mfhocail i gcanúint Iorras Aithneach’ Ériu 48 (1997) 161-204. 204 TOMÁS Ó CON CHEANAINN Tháinig dúil i gcaitheamh tobac ag Murchadh Ó Laidhe. Tharraing sé amach a phíopa agus chuaidh sé dá dheargadh. ‘Sé an sórt deis deargtha a bhí aige cloch theine. Tharraing sé amach an chloch theine go mbaineadh sé teine aiste. Nuair a bhí se a’ gul dá bualadh labhair an ceannphort tighe agus dubh- airt: ‘Cara is coimrighe ort! a Mhurchadh Uí Laidhe, is ná tóig an ríoghacht orainn, is pébí duais a iarrfas tú tá sé le fagháil agad,’ mar dá lastaoi teine ar an talamh sin bhí sé tóigthe ó dhraoidheacht. Loic Murchadh Ó Laidhe gan an teine a lasadh ar chomhairle cheannphuirt an ríoghacht. D’fhiafruigh ceannphort an ríoghacht de: ‘Cé is fearr leat céird nó ealadhain?’ ‘Ealadhain fhéin,’ adubhairt Murchadh le tarcuisne ar an eal- adhain. Cheap sé go mbadh bheag le rádh í. ‘Ó’s í an ealadhain adubhairt tú,’ adubhairt an ceannphort leis, ‘sí a chaithfeas tú a thóigeáil’. D’fhosgail sé comhra mhór a bhí aige, agus thug sé leabhar amach as. ‘Seo dhuit an leabhar seo,’ adubhairt sé le Murchadh, ‘agus ná hoscail é71 go ceann seacht mbliana, agus ní bheidh aon dochtúr in Éirinn a bhéas chomh maith leat.’ Dubhairt na fir a thug ar an mbaile é go raibh iallach orthab féin é a fhágáil ar ais, go raibh sé i n-am acab a ghul leis. Tháinig an cóisteoir is a chuid capall, agus a chóiste aige, gur fhága sé ag a’ mbád iad. Chuadar isteach sa mbád uiliug, d’fháisg ar a’ seisear fear ag iomramh. Ní mórán achair thóig sé orthab é a fhágáil ar ais san áit chéanna ag bun Chroc an Choillín. Tháinig sé abhaile agus a leabhar aige. Ní raibh mórán suime aige ann. Cheap sé go mb’fhada an t-achar go ceann seacht mbliana gan fhios a bheith aige céard a bhí sa leabhar. Ní raibh sé aige ach bliain nuair a d’fhosgail sé é, agus ní raibh sé indon a léigheadh ach an seachtmhadh cuid de. Ach ní raibh aon dochtúr i n-Éirinn san am sin chomh maith leis. Dá bhfágadh sé an leabhar seacht mbliana gan é72 a fhosgailt ní bheadh aon dochtúr sa domhan a bheadh chomh maith leis.73

71 Tá lua ar leabhar mar é (in áit í) in aghaidh na canúna seo; cf. de Bhaldraithe, Gaeilge Chois Fhairrge ¤¤1, 278. 72 Ní é (ach í) a bheadh ag an scéalaí anseo ag tagairt do leabhar. 73 Mac Giollarnáth, ‘An dara tiachóg as Iorrus Aithneach (mír 8, ‘Murchadh Ó Laidhe’)’ 23. SEANCHAS AR MHUINTIR LAIDHE 205 (b) An chéad leagan a chuir dalta scoile síos Tá leagan spéisiúil ar fáil a thóig cailín scoile síos i mbliain a 1931 mar chuid de chnuasach béaloidis óna muintir faoi threoir Liam Mhic Coisdealbha, agus ba shin sé bliana roimh ‘Scéim na Scol’.74 San am sin ba timire Gaeilge é Liam, sul má fuair sé post mar bhailitheoir lánaimseartha faoi Choimisiún Béaloideasa Éireann (a bunaíodh i 1935). Tá an nóta seo le clár ábhair an chnuasaigh sin (RBÉ Iml. 64, cuid 21d):

Áine Nic Con Iomaire, Coillín, Cárna, Conamara, a scríobh 1 síos a bhfuil annseo óna muintir sa mbaile, 14 ⁄2 bl. a haois. Liam Mac Coidealbha 24/4/31 Léiríonn scéal atá sa gcnuasach seo seanchas atá ar bhéal na ndaoine i gCarna leis na cianta, agus feicimid as an leagan sin agus as leagan Éamoinn Liam a Búrc (Roinn 11 thíos) an ceangal a bhí sa mbéaloideas idir Cnoc an Choillín agus scéal an fhuadaigh go Beag- Árainn. Is leagan stairiúil é seo – an chéad leagan den scéal ó dhalta scoile – a thóig an cailín beag sin síos san Aibreán 1931. Seo mar chuir sí síos é (féach Pláta 1):

An t-aoileán atá faoi draoidheact Cualamar ag na sean ndaoine go minic go bfeictear talamh go soileir ins an b’fhairrge siar ó aoilean Árann. Sé an t-ainm ata ar an ait na raibh75 an t-aoilean seo le feiceal Druim an Iomaire.76 Ní feictear an talamh seo eirigthe ó draoidheact act uair ins an seactmar77 bliadhain. Cualamar gur tugadh fear saogalta as an ait seo go dtí an ait sin. Bhí fear óg ag dul siar cnuic an Coilín ins an mbaile a bfuil muid na gcomnuidhe ann 74 An scéim stairiúil údan lenar eagraigh Coimisiún Bhéaloideas Éireann bail- iúchán béaloidis ar fud an stáit ó dhaltaí na mbunscoileanna le cead an Aire Oideachais, 1937-38. Tá an cnuasach sin anois i Leabharlann RBÉ. Níos deireanaí ba mar ‘Mac Coisdeala’ a litríodh Liam a shloinne. 75 ‘an aøit na raibh’: b’fhéidir go bhfuil lorg Ghaeilge na scoile le feiceál anseo ar na (= ’na [Cúige Mumhan] < ina [Meán-Ghaeilge]). Ní hé an leagan seo den chlásal coibhneasta (’na raibh < ina raibh) atá go coitianta i nGaeilge Chonnacht ach sean- leagan gan an forainm coibhneasta a bheith ann i gcuideachta an réamhfhocal in, e.g. an áit a raibh sé (< i rraibe/rraibhe); ar an gcuma chéanna san áit a bhfuil sé. 76 ‘Druim an Iomaire’: tá caint ag Ruairí Ó Flathartaigh ar iomaire sa bhfarraige, Imaireboy (i.e. ‘an tIomaire Buí’), atá ag síneadh le cósta thiar Chonnacht: Hardi- man, West Connaught 73; cf. Ó hÓgáin ‘the mystical island in Irish folklore’ 249. 77 ‘seac[h]tmar’: botún scríbhneoireachta in áit seachtmhadh (= seachtú). 206 TOMÁS Ó CON CHEANAINN tratnóna breag Samrad sul i ndeaca an grian faoi. Breathnuigh sé amach ar an bfairrge agus connaic sé an t-aointeas ba mo leis féin a connaic aon nduine dá dtáinic ar an saoghal ariamh. Connaic sé cnuic is gleannta tighthi móra caoilte fasach. Níor fagadh sé78 an ait a raibh sé na suidhe act ag dearcadh agus ag deanamh iongantas d’on talamh seo bhí sé feiceal. Ba gearr go bfaca sé bad fada ag teact aige agus seiseir fear inte agus iomra maith uirthí agus táinic siad ins an ait dtír79 na raibh80 an fear na suidhe. Siubhal beirt aca amach as an mbad agus táinic siad faoi na dhein. Labhair fear aca leis táinic muid go do iarraidh81 tamaill don oidhche a dubhairt an fear a labair ag banais mas é do thoil é a teact linn agus mo laimh agus m-ocfail duit go bfaghadh82 muid slán sabailte ins an ait ceadhna aris thú. Bhí go mait deirigh sé na seasamh agus cuaidh sé leo go dtí an bad leo [athrá anseo]. O tá sibh ag gealladh domh go bhfaøca sibh slán sabailte ins an ait ceadna aris mé. D’imthigh leis féin agus leis féin [athrá anseo] agus ba gearr go raibh siad i dtír ar an talamh ionghantach seo a bhí sé feiceal d’on cnuic.83 Nuair a siubal sé amac ar an talamh as an mbád ceap sé nac raibh aon talamh faoi beal an domhain ní ba breaghtha ná an ait a raibh sé84 na seasamh. Ní raibh sort nídh ar bíth dá breagtha nac raibh le feiceal aige. Ní raibh sort thórai na fastaí dá breaghtha85 nac raibh le feictheal aige. Tíghthibh móra breagh go ndeacadar go dtí an cuairt na raibh an lainean nuadh tar eis posta ann. Bhí an teac lán le daoine uaisle fír agus mná bhí ceol agus damsa ann bhí gac uile sort siamsa ann agus pladh raca.86 Bhí ithe is ól ann ag beag is ag mór tóghadh gach biadh agus rabhann87 gac dighe. Díth sé ag[us] dol sé a dothcain agus damsaí sé ar nos gac duine. Bhí sé ag caitheamh tobac agus tainic duil i ngal tobac aige ní raibh aon chipíní solus ann san uair sin. Sé an deis tinne a bhíodh ar bunn an flint. Líon sé a phíopa le tobac tharraing

78 ‘níor fagadh sé’: níor fhága (< fhágaibh, sean-fhoirm) sé. 79 ‘ins an áit dtír’: i dtír ins an áit, a shíl an scríbhneoir óg a chur síos. 80 ‘na raibh’: féach n. 75. 81 ‘go do iarraidh’: anailís an scríbhneora ar do do iarraidh (lena chur go simplí), leagan a deirtear sa gcanúint seo mar go t’iarra. 82 ‘go bfaghadh’: go bhfágfaidh. 83 ‘(a bhí sé) feiceal d’on cnuic’: (a bhí sé) a fheiceál den chnoc. 84 ‘an ait a raibh sé’: sin an gnáthleagan sa gcanúint seo; cf. thuas, nn. 75 agus 80. 85 i.e. ní raibh sórt toraidh ná fás dá bhreátha. 86 ‘pladh raca’: pléaráca. 87 ‘rabhann’: roghain/rogha. SEANCHAS AR MHUINTIR LAIDHE 207 amach a flint le tinne a bhaint as le na phíopa a lasadh.88 Do cara agus do cuimnighe89 arsa fear an tighe, Artuir90 Uí Laoighe [Laidhe] na tóg a gcuid91 talamh orainn agus pé aca is fearr leat ceird na aileain92 gabfadh tú93 é. Aileain féin arsa Altúir94 le dróc meas ar an aileain adubhairt sé an cainnt seo. Ach ga lasac sé an tinne ar a gcuid talam[n]a bhí se toigthe uaidh draoideact aige cuir sé an flint ina poca aris gan aon lasadh a baint as agus annsin beigein do a dul ag caingeal tobac. Ac ó is ar an aileain a labair sé ar dtus caitheadh sé í thógail. Seo leabhar duit adubairt fear an tighe na fhosgail í go ceann seact mbliadhna agus ní beidh aon dóchtuir faoi an domain uiling95 a bhios leath na triomadh cuid comh maith leat. Annsin tug sé an leabar leis agus d’fhághadh ná fír ceadna ar ais ins an mbad fada é ins an ait ar tóigeadar é. Nuair a táinic sé abaile ag a muinntir bhí sé seact mbliadhna imtighthe uatha ó connaiceadar roime sin é. Níor raibh sé an bliadhain tar eis é a teact abaile no gur fosgail sé an leabhar ní raibh sé i n-dán i leigead96 act an seacmadh cuid dhíth agus ní raibh aon dóchtair le fághail a bhí comh maith leis. Sin é an caoi a bfuair Artuir O Laoidhe [Laidhe] an dóc- taireact. CRIOC SIN Níl breag ar beith ins an sgéal sin.

Féach gur forainmneachaí baininscneacha atá ag tagairt don leabhar sa leagan sin thuas: ‘na fhosgall í go ceann seact mbliadhna’ agus ‘ní raibh sé i n-dán i leigead act an seacmadh cuid dhíth’, rud a thais- peáineann (mura mbeadh sin ar eolas againn cheana!) gur eagarthóireacht atá déanta ag Seán Mac Giollarnáth agus ag Liam

88 ‘a lasadh’: deargadh an gnáth leagan i gcás an phíopa. 89 ‘do cuimnighe’ (sic): do choimrighe/choimirce. D’úsáid an scríbhneoir an litriú sin mar aithris ar fhocal aitheanta (cuimhne/chuimhnigh) a raibh r ar n aici ann. Maidir leis an leagan atá i gceist, cf. ‘Cara is coimrighe ort! a Mhurchadh Uí Laidhe’ (thuas, lch 204). 90 Macalla ó ‘a Dhochtúir’, leagan a bhí cloiste ag an scríobhaí óg nó ag duine éigin a bhí ag cuidiú léi, nó ag deachtú di. 91 ‘a gcuid’: ár gcuid. Deirtear ár mar a [schwa] sa gcanúint seo. 92 ‘aileain’: ealaín. 93 ‘gabfadh tú’: gheobhaidh tú nó gheofa tú; ach is gheibhidh tú (a deirtear mar gheihe tú) atá sa gcanúint seo. 94 Féach n. 90. 95 ‘uiling’: uiliug < uile go (léir); lorg cóipeála san -n-, b’fhéidir. 96 ‘i n-dán i leigead’, i.e. i ndon a léigheadh (= léamh). 208 TOMÁS Ó CON CHEANAINN Mac Coisdeala nuair a thagraíonn a gcuid téacsanna do leabhar mar ‘é’. Creidim nach rabhadar dílis dá bhfoinsí sa gcás seo! Ba iníon le Pádraic Mac Con Iomaire thuasluaite (n. 70) í Áine a rinne an cnuasach sin. ‘Neain’ (Nan) a thugtaí uirthi. Bhí suim sa scéalaíocht beirthe léi. Níorbh é amháin go mba scéalaithe cumasacha Pádraic, a hathair, agus Tomás, a huncail, ach ba clann iníne iadsan do Mharcus Ó Laidhe, scéalaí mór le rá a bhí ar an gCoillín.97 Ba ag a muintir a bhíodh Liam Mac Coisdealbha ag fanacht nuair a tháinig sé go Carna ar dtús; agus is dóigh gurbh ó Liam a fuair sí Ó Laoighe/Laoidhe mar litriú (nó, tá faitíos orm, mar fhoghraíocht) ar Ó Laidhe, mar atá aici ansin thuas. Tá Áine slán beo fós ach, ar nós mórán dá fine, is thall i mBoston atá sí.

Leagan III Leagan comhshuite as Carna Níl aon ainm tugtha in inseacht Phádraic Mhic Con Iomaire ar an áit a dtug lucht an bháid Mrocha Ó Laidhe d’iomramh oíche, ach tá sé ráite sa leagan a fuair Áine Nic Con Iomaire (agus a bhfuil Druim an Iomaire luaite ann), agus é le tuiscint as leaganachaí eile as Iorras Aintheach, gurbh í Beag-Árainn a bhí i gceist. Ó bhí scéal Mhrocha agus Bheag-Árann cloiste ag Ruairí Ó Flathartaigh is féidir a rá go bhfuil imeachtaí an Mhrocha sin ar bhéal na ndaoine ón dara leath den seachtú céad déag. Ach is sine go mór an chéad chuid atá anois le fáil suite roimh scéal an fhuadaigh go Beag-Árainn. Is éard atá sa gcéad chuid seo seanmhóitíf scéalaíochta a dtugtar ‘Scian in Aghaidh na Toinne’ air, scéal béaloidis a bhí le fáil ar chósta thiar na hÉireann ar fad.

(i) Scian in aghaidh na Toinne Is éard atá i móitíf na Scine in aghaidh na Toinne scéal faoi bhean óg as Tír-fó-thoinn a bheith ag ardú maidhme ar an bhfarraige le fear saolta a chloí agus a fhuadach; ach caitheann an fear scian in aghaidh na toinne agus, gan a fhios sin aige, is sa mbean óg dhofheicthe a chuireann sé an scian. Sábháileann sin faoi láthair é.98 Ní fios cé’n uair a ceanglaíodh ainm ‘Mhic Uí Laidhe’ i bPobal Charna le móitíf ’na Scine in aghaidh na Toinne, ach is cosúil gurbh é ainm Mhrocha

97 Mac Giollarnáth, Annála beaga 329-9. 98 Faoin móitíf scéalaíochta seo féach na tagairtí atá tugtha ag Angela Bourke, ‘Economic necessity and escapist fantasy in Éamon a Búrc’s sea-stories’ in Lysaght et al., Islanders and lake-dwellers 22 n.; cf. Aodh Ó Canainn agus Seosamh Watson, Scian a caitheadh le toinn (Baile Átha Cliath 1990) 85 agus 117. SEANCHAS AR MHUINTIR LAIDHE 209 Uí Laidhe an chéad ainm den mhuintir sin a ceanglaíodh le seanscéal simplí (neamhchomhshuite) an fhuadaigh go Beag-Árainn. I Leagan III is é an chaoi a bhfuil móitíf na Scine in aghaidh na Toinne mar fhráma ar scéal an fhuadaigh go Beag-Árainn. Seo dhá shliocht a léiríonn substaint an leagain spéisiúil den scéal comhshuite sin a thóig Liam Mac Coisdealbha, i mbliain a 1935, ó Eoghan Ó Neachtain a bhí ina chónaí ar an Aird Mhóir i gCarna:

Bhí fear ina chônuí i n-Áird a’ Chuisleáin,99 i bPobul Chárna, tamall bliantaí ó shoin. Lá bhí sé ag ul100 go Gaillimh101 i mbád mhór,102 soir a’ Caoláire,103 7 d’eiri an túnn bháite104 ’n-a dhia’; 7 bhí sí ’n-a dhia’ i rith an lae, 7 é ’g iarra a bheith gá shábháilt héin. Ach nuair a bhí sé a’ casa isteach i ród na Gaillimhe ag ceann dheire Inse Iathrach105 d’eiri an túnn bháite ’n-a dhia, 7 shíl sé go ru sé cáillte. Ach bhí sgian leagthaí ar cheánn a’ lacair106 le n’-ais, 7 ní dheárna sé ach breith ar a’ sgian 7 í chatha i n-aghaidh na faraige. Agus nuair a chath thit an fharaige 7 níor eiri sí níos mú. (ii) An fuadach Tháinic an aimsir chomh dona ina dhiaidh sin go mb’éigean don bhádóir siúd (atá gan ainm fós sa scéal) an bád a fhágáil i nGaillimh agus ‘a thíocht tímpall abhaile’. Sa seansaol is siar caol díreach treasna an chriathraigh, agus ina bhonnaíocha, a dhéanfadh fear

99 ‘Aird an Chaisleáin’: An Aird /ɑ:rd«/ Thoir, áit a raibh caisleán ag Tadhg na Buile Ó Flathartaigh (a bhí i réim sa dara leath den séú céad déag). Féach ‘Caisleán na hÁirde agus Tadhg na Buile’, in Mac Giollarnáth, Annála beaga 38-43. 100 ‘ag ul’: a’ gul i.e. ag goil (gabháil) faoi anáil ag dul. Coinnítear an /l´/ sa lea- gan eile seo ag gabháil /go:l«/ an bháid. 101 Gaille a déarfadh an scéalaí. 102 Ba cineál áirithe báid seoil a bhí sa mbád mór, í níos mó ná an púcán agus ná an ghleoiteog. Thugtaí húicéara (hooker) freisin ar an mbád mór. I gConamara agus in Árainn ba í ba mhó a bhíodh in úsáid le luchtanna earraí a thabhairt as siopaí na Gaillimhe. Chuir na leoraithe deireadh le ré na mbád mór. 103 An Caoláire (< Caolsháile) a bhíodh ag lucht seoltóireachta (go háirithe) ar Chuan na Gaillimhe. 104 Tonn mhór a bháifeadh bád agus daoine. 105 Is léir gurb í seo Inis Caorach (Mutton Island) amach ó chaladhphort na Gaillimhe, mar a mbíodh longa ag fanacht ar an ‘ród’ (< road) ancaire le píolóití a thóigeál. 106 Locar (agus ní lacar) is gnáthaí a thabhairt air seo. Is éard é an locar an suíochán deiridh sa mbád a suíonn an fear a bhíonn ag gabháil an bháid air; cf. T. S. Ó Máille, Liosta focal as Ros Muc (Baile Átha Cliath 1974). 210 TOMÁS Ó CON CHEANAINN scafánta turas mar sin as Gaillimh;107 ach is samhlaíocht atá ann a cheapadh go mbíodh sponc (tinder) agus cloch thine ar iompar ag fear tuaithe mar sin lena phíopa a dheargadh:

Ach bhí cuid go na sean-ndaoine ’rá, áit a dtugann siad Gleánn a’ Rud air, taobh amu’ go bhaile Chill Chiaráin, go dtáinic fear eile 7 gur iarr sé leis é – go ru grotha aige dhe go ceánn tamaill, 7 go bhfácat108 sé slán sábháilte sa mbaile aríst é. Agus chua sé i n-éinfheacht leis, 7 sén áit a dtug sé é san áit a dtugann siad Beag-Árainn air, feictar chaon seachtú bliain taobh thiar go na h-Árainneachaí sa bhfaraige, ó dheas go Sgeirde Mór. Agus nuair a tháinic sé isteach sa teach bhí bean óg bhí sí ’g éagcaoin i leaba sa gclúid. Agus dúirt a’ fear leis dhul 7 a’ sgian a bhí in- a taobh sin, faoi n-a cí(ch),109 í tharraint má bu bh’é110 a thoil é. ‘Agus tiúra mé,’ adeir sé, ‘luach saothair math dhuit as é dhi- ana’. ‘Cén chiall nach dtairneót sib héin í?’ adeir Mac Uí Laoidh [Laidhe]. ‘Ó, well, níl aon chúmhacht a’inn í tharraint’ adeir sé, ‘nó go dtairní tú héin ’n sgian,’ adeir sé, ‘ós tú ’chath a’ sgian’. Ach chua sé 7 tharrain sé an sgian, 7 nuair a tharrain, tharrain sé amach a phíopa go ndeargat sé é. Bhí sé ag iúmpar spúnc 7 tine chreas le n-a phíopa ’dhearga, ar nús mar tá cipíní soluis anois. ‘Ó, do chara is do choímrí!’ adeir a’ fear, adeir sé, ‘ná bain m’áitiú dhíom,’ adeir sé, ‘go brách,’ adeir sé, ‘is ní dhianfa sé aon mhaith dhuitse: mar má bhaineann tú dhíom-sa é,’ adeir sé,

107 Scéal atá ag Mac Giollarnáth, Annála beaga, 336-7, Pádraic Mac Con Iomaire ag inseacht faoi athair a athar: ‘Bhí m’athair mór, Pádraic Mhac Con Iomaire, le gul go Gaillimh lá. Aimsir sgadán a bhí ann … chuaidh m’athair mór abhaile chun a thighe féin mar a ghabhfadh sé ag ithe a bhéile nó ag iarraidh a chuid éadaigh. Nuair a tháinig sé ar ais le gul sa mbád mór bhí an bád mór seolta soir roimhe. Ní dhearna sé ach aghaidh a thabhairt ar Ghaillimh timcheall. Bhí cóir dheas ag an mbád. Níor thóg sí mórán le sé nó seacht d’uaireannta go raibh sí i nGaillimh. ’Sé m’athair mór an chéad fhear a rug ar théid an bháid ar bhalla na céibhe i nGaillimh nuair a tháinig sí isteach sa dug’. 108 ‘go bhfácat sé’: go bhfágfadh sé. 109 ‘cí(ch)’: foirm mhínithe ón mbailitheoir; ach is as cígh a tháinig cí. 110 ‘bu bh’é’: dúblú na copaile. Is coitianta go mór ba é, foirm a bhfuil sleamhnóg /j/ idir an dá ghuta inti (< badh é). SEANCHAS AR MHUINTIR LAIDHE 211

‘tóigfe Sasana go láimh é 7 ní fhágfa siad a’t-sa111 é. Ach tiúra mé leabhar dhuit,’ adeir sé, ‘a dhianfas maith dhuit go brách,’ adeir se, ‘ach nach n-osgló tú é,’112 adeir sé, ‘go ceann seacht mblianna.’ Thug sé an leabhar dhó. ‘Ní bheidh aon dochtúir faoin ngréin,’ adeir sé, ‘a bheas chó math leat,’ adeir sé, ‘faoi cheánn seacht mblianna,’ adeir sé, ‘ach gan é osgailt go dtí sin’.113

In ainneoin a bhfuil de ghaol cainte idir inseacht Phádhraic Mhic Con Iomaire (Leagan II) agus an dara cuid d’inseacht Eoghain Uí Neachtain is dhá leagan éagsúla iad agus gan aon tagairt sa gcéad cheann díobh d’eachtra na Scine in aghaidh na Toinne. Ní scéal comhshuite atá i leagan Mhic Con Iomaire. Sa leagan sin is de bharr staonadh óna phíopa a dheargadh le tine chreasa (rud a thóigfeadh an ríocht ó dhraíocht) a bronnadh an leabhar ar Mhac Uí Laidhe. Níl caint ar bith sa leagan sin ar bhean óg, mar atá in inseacht Eoghain Uí Neachtain. Is léir, ar ndóigh, gur don leagan ina leigheastar an bhean óg atá ciall ar bith leis an tagairt do leabhar. Ní mór glacadh leis, áfach, go bhfuil an dá leagan seo ar fhuadach Mhrocha Uí Laidhe, Leagan II agus Leagan III, ag imeacht i gcuideachta a chéile le fada in Iorras Aintheach.

10. Leabhar Mhuintir Laidhe

‘The Book of the O’Lees’, agus fós ‘The Book of O’Brazil’, na tei- dil a bhíodh ag Béarlóirí ar lámhscríbhinn leighis atá ar coimeád in Acadamh Ríoga na hÉireann (23 P 10 ii; uimh. 453), lámhscríbhinn a bhítí tráth a nascadh leis an seanchas faoin leabhar údan, mar a bhí ráite, a fuair Mrocha Ó Laidhe i mBeag-Árainn.

(a) Ceangal ag an leabhar le Gaillimh Is í an tuairisc a scríobh Eoghan Ó Comhraidhe (Eugene O’Curry) ar an leabhar seo i gClár a rinne sé ar lámhscríbhinní an Acadaimh in 1843-4 (agus a dtugtar Academy Catalogue air) atá an chéad- tuairisc intaofa a tugadh ar Leabhar Mhuintir Laidhe. 111 ‘a’t-sa’: agatsa. 112 ‘ach nach n-osgló tú é’: ach tú gan é a oscailt / ach gan tú dhá oscailt. Go rialta is forainm baininscneach a ghabhann le leabhar sa gcanúint seo. Caithfidh sé gurbh é an bailitheoir a d’athraigh sin (cf. supra nn. 71-2). 113 RBÉ 157:526-9. Tá tuairisc tugtha ar Eoghan Ó Neachtain ag Mac Coisdealbha, ‘Im’ bhailitheoir béaloideasa’ 157. Is Neachtair (< Neachtain), gan Ó, is coitianta mar leagan ar an sloinne seo inniu i nGaeltacht Chonamara. 212 TOMÁS Ó CON CHEANAINN Tá tuairisc Uí Chomhraí ar an lámhscríbhinn, fiú an chuid di nach bhféadfadh a bheith inti ach tuairimíocht, an-spéisiúil ar fad. Feicimid anseo freisin an chéad uair, measaim, ar húsáideadh an fhoirm Lee i saothar acadúil ag tagairt do Mhrocha Ó Laidhe:

The manuscript was lately purchased in the town of Galway from a man named Thomas Keady, a shoe-maker, and its tradi- tional history is as follows: About the year 16[ ] a man named Morogh O’Ley who lived in Connemara pretended to have been transported by supernatural means into the enchanted island of O’Brasil which was very much talked of in that part of the country. During his stay on the island he pretended to have received a supernatural knowledge of the cure of all dis- eases, together with this manuscript for his unerring direction in their performance. The delusion took well with his credulous countrymen and the extraordinary arrangement of the book itself, written in all directions, was sufficient to confirm the ignorant, to whom only it was permitted to be shewn, in its miraculous history. See Roderick O’Flaherty’s statistical account of West Connaught for Ley’s visit to the Island of O’Brasil. The common sense of the above wild story is this. The O’Lee’s were a long time hereditary physicians to the O’Flahertys – this book certainly belonged to them and descended as a matter of course to the above M[ ] Lee, who, in consequence of the downfall of his patrons previous to this period, had his education neglected, and consequently was unable to make any practical use of this book, wherefore he adopted the above scheme to make a character and name for himself, and he succeeded very well.114

Ní raibh tráchtas tíreolaíochta Uí Fhlathartaigh ar Iar-Chonnachta foilsithe fós san am sin (1843-4) agus léiríonn an tagairt atá ag Ó Comhraidhe dó go raibh lámhscríbhinn an údair (a bhí, agus atá, i gColáiste na Tríonóide, Baile Átha Cliath) léite aige.115

(b) Seo tuairisc Uí Argadáin ar Leabhar Mhuintir Laidhe, a bhí tamall faoina láimh féin (féach Pláta 2):

114 Eugene O’Curry, ‘Hodges and Smith’s Collection,’ Part III, No. 212, pp 646-47 (neamhfhoilsithe). 115 LS 883.1, lgh 101-35. SEANCHAS AR MHUINTIR LAIDHE 213 The book above alluded to, lay for some time in the possession of the editor. It is now called the Book of O’Brazil; and cer- tainly was well calculated to suggest and keep up the singular deception it happened to be connected with. It is a medical manuscript on vellum, in good preservation, containing forty- six large 4to. folios, very well written in Irish and Latin, in the fifteenth century (the year 1434 occurs on p. 76), and it appears to have remained until a late period in the possession of the Lee family; for the name P. Lee is inscribed on the first folio, in modern handwriting. The pages are curiously ruled and divided, each presenting somewhat the appearance of a com- plex astrological figure. It presents lists of various diseases, with their cures, mostly arranged in parallel columns.116

(c) An dochtúr bréige Is maith a réitíonn teoiric spéisiúil Uí Chomhraidhe faoi cháilíochta leighis Mhrocha Uí Laidhe leis an leagan eile atá curtha ag Ó hArgadáin ar an scéal:

The truth, however, seems to be that Morogh O’Ley, whose patrimony was confiscated in the seventeenth century, turned quack-doctor to obtain a livelihood; and that he then invented the story of O’Brazil and the book, in order to attract attention. It is, moreover probable, that he was previously in possession of the book in question; and that it had descended to him from his ancestors, who, it is known, were hereditary physicians in Iar-Connaught.117

Is furasta a thuiscint, mar a dúirt Ó Comhraidhe, go gcreidfí fadó an bunús a bhí curtha síos do chumas eolais an Dochtúr Ó Laidhe. Chuideodh finscéal mar sin le caomhnú leabhair mar seo, leabhar ón saol eile, mar a creideadh.

(d) Mír sheachráin faoin leabhar draíochta Tá leagan gearr béaloidis de scéal an leabhair (faoin teideal seo ‘An Leabhar Dhraoidheachta’) a thóg Máirtín Ó Cadhain síos óna uncail Máirtín Beag Ó Cadhain:

Fuair athair a’ Dochtúr Ó Laidhe – dochtúr a bhí annseo fadó – 116 Hardiman, West Connaught 71, n. t. 117 ibid. 70, n. t. 214 TOMÁS Ó CON CHEANAINN fuair sé leabhar amuigh i n-áit eicínt, agus bhí sé ordaighthe i dtosach a’ leabhair gan í osgailt go ceánn seacht mbliana. D’osgail sé í shul má bhí cheithre bliana caithte. Ní bheadh aon dochtúr faoi’n saol ab fheárr ná é dhá bhfágat sé na seacht mbliana í, ach bhí sé thar cíonn mar bhí sé.118

Lámhscríbhinn draíochta a measadh a bheith inti seo mar is intuigthe as an bhfocal seo amuigh i n-áit eicínt, is é sin, leabhar leighis a tháinig ón saol eile. Feicimid i leagan Chois Fharraige freisin tagairt do thraidisiún eile, is é sin, gur tháinig an leabhar anuas ó athair go mac; anseo níorbh é an Dochtúr Ó Laidhe féin a fuair an leabhar ach a athair. Níl log, pearsa ná dáta Leabhar Mhuintir Laidhe ar eolas. Is lámh- scríbhinn bhreá mheamraim í, áfach, atá ag dul i bhfad siar ó thaobh aoise roimh aimsir Mhrocha Uí Laidhe. Is dóigh gur fada go ndéan- far amach cár scríobhadh an leabhar breá sin, nó cérbh é an scríobh- aí.119

11. Sméar mhullaigh an traidisiúin

Léamar thuas (Roinn 9) leagan (Leagan III) as croilár Phobal Charna den scéal a bhfuil cónascadh dhá eachtra bhunúsacha déanta ann: ‘Scian in aghaidh na Toinne’ agus Fuadach Mhic Uí Laidhe go Beag- Árainn. De bharr na tuisceana atá faighte againn ar an leagan comhshuite sin agus de thairbhe an eolais atá againn ar leagan aonghnéitheach Phádraic Mhic Con Iomaire (Leagan II) táimid réidh anois le blaiseadh de sméar mhullaigh an traidsiúin iontaigh seo, mar atá, an leagan a thug Éamonn Liam a Búrc i mbliain a 1938 do Liam Mac Coisdealbha. Seo í an tuairisc oifigiúil a líon an bailitheoir sin

118 Mír 30 in Ó Cadhain, ‘Sgéaluigheacht Chois-Fhairrge’. Tabhair faoi deara an dá thagairt bhaininscneacha do leabhar; cf. thuas, nn. 71-2. Tá an nóta spéisiúil seo ag Ó Cadhain, ibid.: ‘Tá an sgéal seo ag Ruaidhrí ’ac Aodha Ó Flaithbhearta in ‘Iar- Chonnacht’, leathanach 70-73. Gheofar cuid mhaith eoluis faoi bhun ughdair a’ sgéil seo ’sna nótaí atá leis an leabhar údan. An leabhar atá i gceist sa sgéilín seo – an leabhar ‘a tháinic ó neamh’ (nó ó bheag-Árainn, ba chirte dhom a rádh), ’uig Mac Uí Laidhe – tá sí ar fáil fós i leabharlann an R. I. A.’ Tá freisin scéal faoi urchar (‘sleagh airgid’) in aghaidh na toinne, agus gan aon cheangal aige leis an leabhar le fáil sa gcnuasach céanna sin as Cois Fharrige, mír 2 ; cf. Bourke ‘Economic necessity and escapist fantasy’ 22, n. 18. 119 Tá sé ráite liom ag Aoibheann Nic Dhonnchadha, ar saineolaí ar lámhscríbhinní leighis na hÉireann í, nach bhfuil leaganachaí Gaeilge na dtéacsanna aitheanta aici in aon lámhscríbhinn eile. SEANCHAS AR MHUINTIR LAIDHE 215 isteach (agus na sonraí áirithe curtha i gcló iodálach anseo agam) ar an téacs a scríobh sé isteach i RBÉ Iml. 447, lgh 376-86, agus a bhí tógtha aige ar an éideafón go gearr roimhe sin:

Do scríobhas síos an sgéal so ar an 9/2/38 ó bhéal-aithris Éamon Búrc. Aos 73. -bheatha táilliúr atá in a chomhnuí i mbaile fearainn Áill na Brún agus a saoluíodh agus a tógadh i [n-]Áird Mhór. Do chuala sé an sgéal so 40 blian ó shin ó n-a athair (Aos an uair sin 58) a bhí in a chomhnuí an uair sin i n-Áird Mhór.120

Leagan comhshuite é seo freisin ar nós leagan Eoghain Uí Neachtain (Leagan III), is é sin, (i) ‘Scian in aghaidh na Toinne’ agus (ii) an Fuadach go Beag-Árainn. Ar fhianaise an ghaoil chainte atá ag codanna den dá leagan seo le chéile, Leagan II agus Leagan III, is cosúil gur féidir a rá gurbh i bPobal Charna a cuireadh le chéile an dá chuid, (i) agus (ii), atá i Leagan III. Cé gur cinnte gur fada siar a bhí trácht ar dhaoine a bheith á bhfuadach go Beag-Árainn d’fhéad- fadh sé gurbh as samhlaíocht nó as cumadóireacht Mhrocha Uí Laidhe i mbliain a 1668 a ceanglaíodh duine den sloinne seo ar dtús leis an bhfuadach sin. Sa leagan seo thíos den scéal ó Éamonn a Búrc is iontach ar fad an tuairisc atá tugtha ar an eachtra a bhain d’fhear de mhuintir Laidhe, bádóir as Iorras Aintheach, lá dá raibh sé ar a bhealach go Gaillimh agus é ag gabháil an bháid leis féin. Soir ó Cheann Gólaim dó, chonaic sé maidhm ag ardú ina dhiaidh agus í ag teacht air. Choinnigh sé a stuaim agus throid sé an anachain (a thuig sé a bheith ag bagairt air) le chuile dheis dá raibh sa mbád aige nó, faoi dheireadh – mar a rinne ‘Mac Uí Laidhe’ freisin in inseacht Eoghain Uí Neachtain – gur chaith sé scian in aghaidh na toinne agus (gan a fhios sin aige) gur i mbean óg as Tír-fó-thoinn a chuir sé í. Ba ar inn ar éigin a shábháil sé é féin.121 Pé ar bith cén scéal é, ní fhéadfadh duine ar bith an leagan beoga a chuir Éamonn a Búrc ar an ngábh mór sin ar an bhfarraige a chóiriú ach bádóir, agus is eol go mba bádóir cumasach a bhí in Éamonn féin. Ní achar fada ama a d’éirigh le Mac Uí Laidhe éaló ón neach a bhí ag faire air, ach dá gháifí í bagairt na toinne móire ba í an chéad

120 Tá tuairisc bhreá tugtha ag Mac Coisdealbha ar Éamonn Liam a Búrc ina aiste stairiúil ar a thréimhse féin mar bhailitheoir béaloidis, ‘Im bhailitheoir béaloideasa’ 147-57. 121 I dtaobh na móitífe seo féach thuas n. 98. 216 TOMÁS Ó CON CHEANAINN eachtra eile a bhain dó ba héachtaí ar fad. Lá dár bhuail sé amach chun an chnuic le hualach fraoigh a bhaint, ar thaobh Chnoc an Choillín siar ó Charna, tháinig troimse nó néall eicínt codalta air. Fuadaíodh chun siúil san aer é, agus nuair a dhúisigh sé ba istigh i mBeag-Árainn a bhí sé. Rinneadh sin, mar a foilsíodh istigh ansiúd dó, le go mbainfeadh sé an scian as an mbean óg; óir b’aigesean amháin, an fear a chaith an scian, a bhí cumhacht ar í a tharraingt. Is mó go mór is spéisiúla an leagan béaloidis seo gurb ionann Mac Uí Laidhe (is é sin, an Dochtúr Ó Laidhe níos deireanaí sa scéal) agus an Morogh O Ley a raibh aithne ag Ruairí Ó Flathartaigh air. Is é seo freisin an Morogh O Lye atá luaite i gcáipéis ó bhliain a 1663 (Roinn 3 (i) thuas). Más fíor do leagan Éamoinn a Búrc, ba i Leitir Deiscirt (ag síneadh suas le Cnoc an Choillín, ar an taobh thoir de Chuan na hÁirde agus taobh thiar de Charna) a bhí Mac Uí Laidhe an lá ar fuadaíodh isteach go Beag-Árainn é; agus ina dhiaidh sin b’ann a bhí sé ina chónaí nó gur imigh sé leis ina dhochtúr. Is é an suíomh gin- earálta céanna (in Iorras Aintheach) atá luaite ag Ó Flathartaigh le Morogh O Ley sa seachtú céad déag (in Irrosainhagh, in the south side of the barony of Balynahinsy) agus atá luaite mar áit chónaithe Mhic Uí Laidhe i leaganachaí Eoghain Uí Neachtain agus Éamoinn a Búrc. I leagan an Bhúrcaigh is fear óg gan pósadh fós é Mac Uí Laidhe, ach i leagan Uí Fhlathartaigh is fear pósta é Morogh O Ley a raibh míshástacht eicínt ar a bhean leis sul má fuadaíodh é. Sin é, b’fhéidir, inseacht Mhrocha féin ar an eachtra a chum sé! B’fhéidir gur móitíf atá sa tagairt do mhúisiam mhná Mhrocha Uí Laidhe a chiallaíonn go raibh fonn imeachta air. I leagan seo Éamoinn Liam, áfach, is mac dílis é ‘Mac Uí Laidhe’ a bhfuil cúram a chuid deirfiúrachaí fós air; ach ní bheidh a fhios againn go deo má chuir (agus is beag nach cinnte gur chuir) Éamonn a Búrc féin, agus b’fhéidir a athair roimhe, craiceann áirithe ar aon ghné den leagan breá seo. Creidim gur léir as litriú áirithe atá ag Liam Mac Coisdealbha, is é sin, Ó Laoidh, sa scríobh a rinne sé as an taifeadadh go raibh sé faoi anáil Ó Laoi (nua-fhoirm ar Gaelú dleathach í ar Lee, an sloinne Gallda). Is aisteach an litriú sin a bheith aige, mar go raibh an fhoirm cheart ó thaobh na foghraíochta (Ó Laidhe) curtha i gcló ag Máirtín Ó Cadhain in Béaloideas chúig bhliana roimhe sin (Roinn 10 (d) thuas).122 Tá dhá fhocal sna téacsanna atá i gcló anseo ar chuir Liam Ó Coisdealbha comhartha leo, /y/, lena thaispeáint gur /ai/ agus nach 122 Roimhe sin ar fad bhí tagairtí do mhuintir Laidhe /lai/ mar dhochtúirí i gcló: Ó Direáin, Sgéalaidhe Leitir Mealláin (Baile Átha Cliath 1926) 24-6. SEANCHAS AR MHUINTIR LAIDHE 217

/i:/ a bhí i gcaint an scéalaí. Ar an gcuma chéanna is léir as cártaí atá i gCartlann na Roinne gur ghlac foireann an Chumainn le Béaloideas Éireann (i bhFaiche Stiabhna go dtí 1970) le Ó Laoidh, an leagan a bhí curtha ag Mac Coisdealbha ar an sloinne. Níorbh iadsan amháin a tháinig faoi anáil na foirme nua-chumtha sin, Ó Laoi. Tá cárta i gCartlann Roinn Bhéaloideas Éireann a luann alt dar teideal ‘Murcha Ó Laoi, fear leighis’ a chuir ‘D. Ó Cearbhaill’ san Irish Weekly Independent, 20. 11. 37. Ní fhéadfadh sé nach raibh Ó Laidhe /o: lai/, an leagan ceart traidisiúnta, cloiste ag Liam Mac Coisdealbha, ach creidim gur ‘comhréiteach’ idir an chaint agus Gaeilge na leabhar a rinne sé. Pé ar bith faoi ‘Doctor Lee’ a thabhairt ar ár laoch i leagan Béarla ar an scéal sin, níl bealach ar bith ar chóir an leagan nua- cheaptha Gaeilge siúd, ‘An Dochtúr Ó *Laoi’, a thabhairt air. Ach tá an leagan sin buanaithe i gcló anois mar theideal ar an scéal seo thíos i gcnuasach de scéalta Éamoinn Liam.123

AN DOCHTÚR Ó LAOIDH [LAIDHE] 7 BEAG-ÁRAINN

§1. Bhí inseo fadó 7 fadó bhí; gá mbeinn-se an uair sin ánn ní bheinn anois ánn; gá mbeinn anois 7 an uair sin ánn bheach sgéal úr nú sean-sgéal á’m,124 nú bheinn gan sgéal a’ bith. Ach ar aon nús, fébí mar tá an sgéal seo á’msa anocht ná ru sé leath cho math agaí-se san oíche amáireach! §2. Mar bhí fear go mhuíntir Laoidh [Laidhe] thiar i mbaile inseo thiar i gCárna a dtugann siad Leitir Deiscirt air, 7 séard a bhí ánn bádóir. Bhí bád breá aige, 7 bu dhé125 ’cheird i gcûnaí a’ bádóireacht. Agus sén áit a mbíoch a’ bád feistí’ aige[,] nuair a thigeat126 sé abhaile[,] ar Chora na Rún127 Ð caltha128 atá ánn.

123 ‘An Dochtúir Ó Laoi agus Beag-Árainn’ in Éamon a Búrc: scéalta, eag. Peadar Ó Ceannabháin (Baile Átha Cliath 1983) 288-92. Is mé féin a chuir paragraif uimhrithe sa téacs atá i gcló san alt seo. 124 ‘á’m’: agam, ach níor chóir don bhailitheoir síneadh a chur ar an a, mar nach guta cúil íseal /ɑ:/ atá i gceist. 125 Áit a bhfuil sleamhnóg chaol /j/ idir an guta leathan agus an guta caol, mar nach bhfuil bá guta i gceist (mar a bhíonn in b’é). Maidir le badh é féach Ruairí Ó hUiginn, ‘Gaeilge Chonnacht’ i Stair na Gaeilge, eag. Kim McCone et al. (Maigh Nuad 1994) ¤5.23. 126 ‘nuair a thigeat sé’: nuair a thigeadh sé. Tá anseo thíos freisin a d’fheicfeat sé (¤2) agus go mairfeat sé (¤3); agus is cinnte gur chuirfeat sé agus nach chuirfeach sé a bhí ag an scéalaí in §4. 127 Cora na Rón, i Leitir Deiscirt, siar ó Charna. 128 ‘caltha’: caladh (do bháid). 218 TOMÁS Ó CON CHEANAINN Tá’s á’m go maith an áit. Ní ru aon mhac aig á n’athair ná aig á n-a mháthair ach é, 7 bhí go leór leór clánn iníon ánn – sa teach. Bu dhiad129 a’ chlann iníon a bhíoch ag obair ar a’ taltha nuair a d’imíodh an dreitheáir ’un na faraige – Mac Uí Laoidh [Laidhe]. Agus bhí sé lá a gul soir ’gul go Gaille (Gaillimh),130 7 soir ón gCeánn [b’fhacthas dó gur bhuail sé carraig].131 Agus nuair a tháinic sí anuas ar a taobh (tuití)132 sgánnthra sé – san áit ar cheap sé ná ru cloch ná carraig ná croc aríú ná aon chaint air. Agus d’eiri sé go léim /7 rug sé ar chroisín133 mhór a bhí sa mbád aige/134 7 bhreatha135 sé faoi, 7 céard d’fheicfeat sé ach an taltha teirm glan 7 fraoch faoi. Ar a’ bpoínnte 7 leag sé an croisín ar an áit thíos shnámh a’ bád. Sheól sí léithe. Agus ní ru ’bhfad a’ bith diantaí aige nuair a d’árda an fharaige ’n-a dhia’, 7 an fharaige a bhí a’ teacht bhí sí cho h-árd le croc. Siúráilte cínnte bháthfat sí an bád, 7 soitheach gá mbeat sí ánn. Bhí trí fhód múna thiar le n’ais san áit a ru sé a’ góil a bháid,136 7 rug sé ar cheánn go na fóide múna nuair a d’árda an fharaige 7 chaith sé an fód múna i n-aghaidh na faraige. Lag an fharaige amach cho mín cho réidh cho daithte 7 bhí sí aríú, cho cineálta. Bhí sé ’seóla leis 7 ní i bhfad a bhí sé goite (gaibhte)137 nuair a thainic croc faraige138 eile ina dhia’ cheap sé bháthfach a’ domhan, 7 ní dheárna sé ach croma ar fhód eile 7 breith ar a bhfód 7 a chatha ina shean-urachar i n-aghaidh na faraige. Agus thit an fharaige 7 shuímhnigh sí amach cho breá cho cineálta cho mín 7 bhí sí aríú. Bhí sé a’ diana ’n bheala’ 7 breezín139 beag

129 Níl i gceist leis an litriú seo ach ba iad le sleamhnóg; féach n. 125. 130 Míniú neamhriachtanach ón mbailitheoir. 131 Sliocht idir lúibíní cearnacha i láimh Mhic Coisdealbha. 132 ‘tuití’: tite; tití /t´it´i:/ sa gcanúint seo. 133 Cleith a mbíonn trasnán (‘scian’) uirthi in aice lena barr, le coirleach (feamuinn láidir fhada) a bhaint de charraigreachaí sa sáile. Mheasfaí, is cosúil, cumhacht a bheith inti anseo in aghaidh ainspride. 134 Ós cionn na líne, i láimh Mhic Coisdealbha. 135 ‘bhreatha sé’: bhreathnaigh (= d’fhéach) sé. 136 ‘A’ góil an bháid’: ag gabháil an bháid, i.e. i mbun stiúrtha an bháid (agus é ina shuí ar an locar). 137 Litriú mínithe ón mbailitheoir. Is ionann brí do na foirmeachaí seo goite/gaibhte agus gafa, aidiachta briathartha as gabhann, anseo a chiallaíonn gluaiseacht; mar a déarfaí ‘tá sé goite abhaile’. 138 ‘Croc faraige’: leagan ceart cainte ar mhaidhm ba cosúil le cnoc. 139 ‘breezín’: *bruísín nó breeze beag. SEANCHAS AR MHUINTIR LAIDHE 219

deas gaoithe aige, lán trí seólta140 go deas, 7 d’árda an fharaige an tríú h-uair ina dhia’. Agus nuair a d’árda bhí sí teacht an- chungarach dhó. Ní rabh ’fhios aige ó Dhia na nGrást céard a b’fheárr ’ó dhiana. Bhí curtha suas le n-a bhás aige. Chrom sé ar a’ tríú fód 7 chath sé an tríú fód i n-aghaidh na faraige, 7 nuair a chath bhuail sé an fharaige 7 lag an fharaige amach cho breá 7 bhí sí aon lá aríú. §3. Bhí go math 7 ní ru go holc. Sheól sé leis, 7 bhí cineál sgátha 7 ímrí i gcûnaí air. Agus i gcíonn tamaill a’ seóla dhó soir chonnaic sé an fharaige ’teacht air aríst an ceathrú uair, 7 níor thada í aon uair le hais na h-iarra so.141 Shíl sé nach mbeach aon tsaol ánn 7 ná ru baol a’ bith go mbeat142 sé héin ná go mair- feat sé beó ina dia’. Ní ru nídh gár chrutha Dia aríú aige le diana, ach chuir sé lámh ina phóca 7 tharrain sé sgian as a phóca 7 d’osgail sé í, 7 nuair a bhí an fharaige ‘teacht cun- garach dhó chath sé an sgian – 7 leag143 an fharaige amach cho breá cho mín cho síbhíalta 7 bhí sí aríú. Rinne sé a bhealach, 7 sgátha mór i gcûnaí air, nú go ndeacha sé go Gaille. Agus nuair a gho sé go Gaille thóg sé lucht 7 tháinic sé ar ais abhaile. Agus d’innis sé a scéal gá athair, gá mháthair, is gá dhreithiúracha 7 go chuile dhuine. §4. Bhí go math 7 ní ru go holc. Tamall math ’n-a dhia’, lá ná ru sé ’plé le bád a’ bith – bhí beithí go leór aige – dúirt sé go mba mhath a’ ceart dó dhul a’ baint ualach fraoigh chuirfeach sé ar na sgiobóil faoi na beithí. Bhuail sé amach un a’ chruic,144 7 nuair a bhuail sé amach un a’ chruic bhain sé an cliabh fraoigh. Agus bhí an cliabh fraoigh baintí aige, nú i ngar ’ó, 7 b’fhacthas dó go ru cineál colla 7 trímse145 ‘teacht air 7 bhí sé 140 An uimhir iolra ina seanghnás i dtagairt do sheolta báid, in áit an uatha atá coitianta sa gcanúint seo (e.g. trí bhád). Dá réir seo is ‘bád mór’, nó, b’fhéidir, gleoiteog, bád trí sheol freisin, a bhíothas a dhéanamh amach a bhí ag Mac Uí Laidhe, cé go raibh sé á gabháil /go:l´/ leis féin. 141 ‘le hais na h-iarra seo’: i gcomparáid leis an iarraidh (nó an iarracht) seo; cf. n. 55. 142 ‘go mbeat sé héin’: go mbeadh sé féin. 143 ‘leag’: lag atá in úsáid i dhá chás eile thuas, §2. 144 ‘un a’ chruic’: chun an chnuic (Cnoc an Choillín, ar an gCoillín, isteach ó Leitir Deiscirt). Is dhá bhaile fearainn An Coillín agus Leitir Deiscirt atá suite idir Cuan na hAirde (taobh thiar) agus Carna (taobh thoir). 145 ‘trímse’: B’fhéidir nár thuig Mac Coisdeala an focal seo agus é a fhágáil mar sin. Ghlac Ó Ceannabháin, Éamon a Búrc: scéalta 289, 292, le foirm na lámhscríbhinne. Is troimse, ‘lagar, meirfean’ [troime/tuirse intinne nó colla] atá ann ó cheart; féach Tomás de Bhaldraithe, Foirisiún focal as Gaillimh (Baile Átha Cliath 1985) 234. 220 TOMÁS Ó CON CHEANAINN gul a’ luighe /y/146 síos. Ach sén sgéal é fuadaighiú ins an aér é 7 é ’n-a cholla, 7 ní rabh ’fhios aige cén áit a ru sé: más fada geárr a bhí sé ‘n-a cholla is dóch go ru sé tamall math nuair a dhúisi sé bhí sé istigh i dteach i leathtaobh na tine, nuair a dhíri sé aniar, 7 seanfhear tuí’ tháll de ar a’ taobh eile. Labhair a’ seanfhear leis 7 labhair Mac Uí Laoidh [Laidhe] leis a’ sean- fhear. ‘Tá colla fada ort’. ‘Tá,’ adeir Mac Uí Laoidh [Laidhe], ‘7 níl fhios á’m cén chiall é ná goité’n [ceartaithe ó goidé’n] t-údar é.’ ‘Ó ní bhíonn rud a’ bith gan údar,’ a deir an seanfhear, ‘ach a’ [n]dianfá oibliogáid anois? Theastót sé gá ndianá é.’ ‘Muise by dad,’ a deir Mac Uí Laoidh [Laidhe] ‘nídh a’ bith sa domhan a b’fhéidir liom a dhiana 7 sórt soilíos a’ bith dhi- anfainn é go dhuine ’bith d’iarrfach orm é’. ‘Tá sé cho maith dhuit theacht aníos ins a’ seúmra seo i éineacht liom-sa mar sin’, adeir an seanfhear. §5. D’eiri Mac Uí Laoidh [Laidhe] 7 gho sé suas ins a’ seúmra, 7 nuair a gho, bhí leaba ánn 7 nuair a ghodar siar ánn bhí an bhean bu bhreácha chonnaic sé aríú ar chúl a cinn sa leaba 7 í ag osnaíl go géar. Agus nuair a bhí, dúirt an seanfhear leis a dhul anúnn 7 breathú ar an sgian a bhí ina cí’ dheas. Agus d’iarr sí héin as ucht Dé 7 na Maighdine Muire ar Mhac Uí Laoidh [Laidhe] a dhul 7 a’ sgian a tharraint as a cí’. Gho Mac Uí Laoidh [Laidhe] 7 shiúil sé go dtí í, 7 shílfeá go ru náire air faoin rud a bhí diantaí aige, 7 d’aithni sé an sgian. Agus thar- rain sé an sgian, 7 d’eiri an bhean óg suas cho math 7 bhí sí aríú le iúmpú boise. §6. ‘Is feárr ’uit anois,’ a deir an seanfhear 7 an bhean óg, ‘an bhean seo ’phósa 7 fanacht inseo i n-éineacht linne’. ‘Ó muise ní fhanfad,’ adeir Mac Uí Laoidh [Laidhe], ‘níl aon ghroth147 á’m a rá go bhfanfainn mar nach bhféatainn.148 Tá go leór leór dreithiúrachaí á’m sa mbaile, 7 ní ru aon mhac ag m’athair ná ag mo mháthair aríú ach mé, 7 tá m’athair lag 7 is math liom

146 Tá y an Bhéarla curtha os cionn na líne ag Mac Coisdealbha lena thaispeáint gur /lai/, agus nach /li:/, a bhí sa bhfocal seo (luighe) ag an scéalaí; cf. n. 40. Is í an fhuaim chéanna sin atá le cloisteáil in Laidhe /lai/, ach níor thaispeáin Mac Coisdealbha sin in áit ar bith. 147 ‘aon ghroth’: aon ghnó; ach deirtear graithe freisin le brí uatha sa gcanúint seo. 148 ‘nach bhféatainn’: nach bhféadfainn, le díghlórú ar an d roimh an anáil atá in f (= /h/). PLÁTA 1 RBÉ Iml. 64, cuid 21 d, lch 102. Ó láimh Áine Nic Con Iomaire, cailín scoile, Coillín, Carna, Aibreán 1931. (Féach thuas lch 205, Roinn 9, Leagan II (b)) PLÁTA 2 RIA, Leabhar Mhuintir Laidhe, lch 38. Tráchtas i nGaeilge ar ghalar súl, ach a theideal i Laidin (Morbus occulorum ‘Galar na súl’). (Féach thuas lch 212, Roinn 10) SEANCHAS AR MHUINTIR LAIDHE 221 fanacht i n-éineacht le mo dhreithiúracha go bhfeice mé ceart iad’. ‘Fan,’ adeir a’ bhean óg. ‘Níl aon cháll duit leis. Agus beidh an áitiú seo go brách a’d, an ríocht seo uilig – Árainn Bheag’, adeir sí. ‘Ní fhanfad,’ adeir Mac Uí Laoidh [Laidhe]. ‘Ó muise ni ligfe muid ar siúl thú,’ adeir a’ seanfhear, adeir sé, ‘gan brúnntanas a thóirt duit, mar tá’s a’inn go math ná ru aon neart agad ar an sgian a chatha: ná ru fear a’ bith sa domhan a bheach i ngábhadh nach bhféachfach le é héin a shábháil cho math 7 d’fhéatach sé é’. ¤7. Bhain sé as suas 7 agus ní ru sé i bhfad i seúmra thuas nuair a tháinic sé 7 bhí leabhar aige. ‘Seo anois leabhar ’uit,’ adeir sé, ‘7 ná hosgail go ceánn seacht mbliana é,149 7 ní bheidh aon dochtúr faoi luighe na gréine ná ar a’ taltha bheidheas leath héin cho math leat. Ach ar a bhfaca tú aríú 7 ar a bhfeicfe tú go brách ná h-osgail é go mbeidh na seacht mbliana thuas’. ‘Go ru math a’d,’ adeir Mac Uí Laoidh [Laidhe], ‘tá mé buíoch dhíot – ní osglód, má fhéadaim’. §8. Ní dheárna an seanfhear ach imeacht leis, le n-a chuid druíocht, 7 Mac Uí Laoidh [Laidhe] chrocha leis gur fhága sé san áit é a ru an cliabh fraoigh ar a’ gcroc, 7 an leabhar aige. Agus nuair a tháinic chuir sé an cliabh fraoigh ar a dhruím 7 a leabhar faoi n’asgail, 7 shiúil sé an croc nú go dtáinic sé abhaile – anuas taobh Chroc a’ Choillín 7 Leitir Deiscirt150 go dtáinic sé anuas i ngar gon áit a mbíoch a’ bád feistí’ aige 7 a ru an teach dianta ag áit a dtugann siad Cora na Rún151 air. Nuair a bhí sé sa mbaile insin chath sé a chliabh faoi isteach ins a’ sgioból, 7 tháinic sé isteach 7 leag sé an leabhar i dtaisge. §9. Bhí an t-ám gá chatha go ru bliain thart. Níor bhac sé leis a’ leabhar. Faoi c[h]eánn blian’ eile bhí an dara bliain caithte, 7 níor osgail sé an leabhar. Bhí chuile dhuine is na bailteachaí a rá leis an leabhar osgailt 7 dúirt sé nach n-osglót sé go deó é nú go mbeach na seacht mbliana thuas. Ach sén sgéal é bhí an leabhar a’ tríú bliain aige caithte go díreach 7 bhuail tinneas col ceathar dhó. Agus bhí an-chion ar a’ gcol ceathar aige, 7 bhí an 149 ‘é’: mar atá i gceist thuas, nn. 71-2. 150 Féach n. 144. 151 i.e. Cora na Rón. 222 TOMÁS Ó CON CHEANAINN col ceathar ré glan le bás fháil – a’ saothrú bás. Thosa chuile dhuine ag iarra as ucht Dé air an leabhar osgailt féachaint a bhfuíot sé152 aon bhealach a leigheasfat sé an col ceathar. Mar sin héin bhí an oiread go chion ar a’ gcol ceathar aige 7 go ndeacha sé suas 7 go dtug sé an leabhar anuas. Nuair a thug sé an leabhar anuas d’osgail sé é, 7 bhí sé a gul thríd aríú aríú go bhfuair sé amach leigheas an chol ceathar, 7 nuair a fuair leigheas sé é. Agus bhí cion trí bliana g’ fhóluim aige le fáil as 7 sgil, 7 bhí an chuid eile gon leabhar – go na billeógaí – cho du’ leis a’ súigh, leáighte amach gan aon mhath. Mar sin héin ní ru sé i n-ánn a dhul ní b’fhuide, ach ní ru aon dochtúr dhá ru ins a’ tír aríú, i gCúndae na Gaillimhe ná i gConnachta153 ná i nÉirinn, bhí ina dhochtúr leath héin cho math le Dochtúr Ó Laoidh [Laidhe]. Agus ní bheach cur síos a’ bith air gá bhfan- fat sé go ceánn na seacht mbliana ach níor fhan. Bhíot sé ’leigheas daoine go leór, 7 d’imi sé ar deire as Leitir Deiscirt ag imeacht roimhe a’ leigheas daoine, íseal 7 uasal. Ach an iarra dheireannach ar imi sé níor facthas aon afarc aríú air ó d’fhága sé an baile ná ó shoin, ach tá muid siúráilte gur b’é ’n chuma dtug an bhean léithe é 7 gur b’é an áit a bhfuil Dochtúr Ó Laoidh [Laidhe] i n-Árainn Bheag.

152 ‘féachaint a bhfuíot sé’: féachaint an bhfaigheadh sé. 153 Is san uimhir iolra amháin atá Connachta le fáil ó cheart, mar seo: tuis. ainmneach, Connachta; tuis. ginideach, (Cúige) Chonnacht; tuis. tabharthach (sa tseanteanga), i gConnachtaibh. ‘Sliocht’ an bhrí a tuigeadh a bheith le -acht in ainmneachaí mar seo, agus mar sin go bunúsach chiallaigh Connachta ‘sleachta Choinn’ (atá ar aon bhrí le Síol gCuinn agus Dál gCuinn i seantéacsanna). Thagair Connachta do na teora Connachta, ‘na trí Connachta’, a háirítí a bheith sa gcúige sin i dtréimhse na luath- staire. Bhí Muintear Chonnacht mar ainm ar sheandúiche i gCo. an Chabháin. Ciallaíonn Iar-Chonnachta an chuid atá taobh thiar de Chonnachta; cf. ‘Iar-Chonnacht means literally ‘’west of Connacht’’, i.e. beyond the province proper’, Francis J. Byrne, Irish kings and high-kings (2London 2001) 230. Tá roinnt fianaise ann go mba cuid bheag den dúiche sin taobh thiar de Loch Coirib a bhíodh i gceist le hIar-Chonnachta sa seansaol, an chuid atá marcáilte Iarconaghe (sic), thart ar Uachtar Ard, ar léarscáil Boazio (thuas, n. 32); cf. thuas n. 2. Ach is Ireconnaught a thugtar ar an dúiche ar fad, tír na bhFlathartach, i gComhdhéanamh Chonnacht (1585); cf. thuas, n. 4. Le fada anois tá tuiscint ar ainm an chúige caillte ag an bpobal, sa gcaoi nach bhfuil acu ach ‘Connacht’, ar uimhir uatha nua í atá bunaithe ar an mBéarla (Connaught). Ní mar sin a bhí an scéal ag Éamonn Liam a Búrc, ná ag na cainteoirí in Hartmann et al., Airneán §§4042, 5573. Is í an tseanfhoirm cheart atá tugtha freisin in Ainmneacha Gaeilge na mbailte poist (Baile Átha Cliath 1969), ach is rún diamhair an fhoirm sin ag tráchtairí agus eile nach bhfuil oiliúint ar bith sa gcrua-Ghaeilge orthu. Plurale tantum (don té a thuigfeadh é!) a deir Foclóir an Acadaimh (DIL) faoi Chonnachta, tuairisc a thagródh freisin do Ulaid (> Cúige Uladh) agus do Laigin (> Cúige Laighean). SEANCHAS AR MHUINTIR LAIDHE 223

§10. Beannacht dílis Dé 7 agus na hEáglais le h-anam na marú, 7 go mbu seacht gcéad déag míle feárr bheas sinn héin 7 a’ cûlódar bliain ó anocht! Ní h-aon sgéal bréagach é seo siúráilte, mar tá’s á’m-sa cá’il an áit a bhfuil a’ baile 7 is minic a bhí mé ánn – Cor na Rún – an áit a mbíoch a’ bád aige 7 teach diantaí ag Dochtúr Ó Laoidh [Laidhe]. Agus ní achar fada blianta ó bhí sé ánn. Sgéal fírinneach siúráilte é d’eiri i bPobal Chárna i gConamara.154 [Seo thíos píosa den sgéal a d’fhág an sgéalaí gan innseacht go dtí anois]155 Nuair a thug an seanfhear isteach Mac Uí Laoidh [Laidhe] 7 d’eiri sé as a’ gcineál trímse a bhí air dhúisi sé. Agus bhí tine ánn. Agus ní dheárna Dochtúr Ó Laoidh [Laidhe] – is dóch liom go ru dúil i ngail tobac aige – chuir sé lámh ina phóca 7 tharrain sé ’phíopa as a phóca. Agus sén bealach ins an ám sin go leor go mhuíntir na háite a ndeargaidís a’ píopa le tine- chreasach – cineál cloch a bhí acab a dtugaidís tine chreasach uirthe. Agus nuair a bhí sé gul a’ lasa156 an phíopa leis a’ tine- chreasach bhí an seanfhear tuí’ tháll – ‘Ó as ucht Dé ort!’157 adeir an seanfhear, ‘7 ná bain mo theach ná mo ríocht ná m’áitiú go deó dhíom – m’Árainn

154 Maidir le Conamara (< Conmhaicne Mara) is cosúil gurbh as an leagan Béarla (‘Connemara’) a tosaíodh ar é a ionannú go coitianta le hIar-Chonnachta, an dúiche ar fad ó Loch Coirib siar. Sa taobh thoir d’Iar-Chonnachta (Barúntachtaí Mhaigh Cuilinn agus an Rosa) thuigeadh na seanghlúnta go mba ar an taobh thiar a bhí Conamara.B’shin seanchuimhne stairiúil, mar gurbh í Conmhaicne Mara an tseansaoil an chuid ba faide siar den dúiche sin ar fad. B’as Conamara na staire a rin- neadh barúntacht Bhaile na hInse sa séú céad déag (n. 4); féach freisin Robinson, Connemara 5, 10-19. 155 Nóta, mar seo idir lúibíni, ón mbailitheoir. 156 ‘gul a’ lasa’: ag dul ag lasadh. Deargadh an focal is coitianta i gcás an phíopa, mar atá san abairt roimpi seo agus sa leagan den scéal atá i gcló thuas, Roinn 9, mar seo: ‘Tháinig dúil i gcaitheamh tobac ag Murchadh Ó Laidhe. Tharraing sé amach a phíopa agus chuaidh sé dá dheargadh’. Tabhair faoi deara gur ag (gan séimhiú ina dhiaidh) agus nach a (< do) a thagann i ndiaidh dul (dhul) sa gcanúint seo; ach ní bhíonn sin soiléir sa gcaint roimh chonsain nach dtaispeáintear séimhiú orthu. 157 Tá caint reiligiúnach (agus mar atá againn freisin ón mbean óg thuas, in §5) as áit i mbruín na sí. Féach gur feiliúnaí an chaint atá i leagan Phádraig Mhic Con Iomaire (sa suíomh céanna) thuas, Roinn 9: ‘Cara is coimrighe ort! a Mhurchadh Uí Laidhe, is ná tóig an ríoghacht orainn, is pébí duais a iarrfas tú tá sé le fagháil agad’, – mar dá lastaoi tine ar an talamh sin bhí sé tóigthe ó dhraoidheacht. Maidir le ‘Cara is coimrighe ort!’ cf. ‘D’iarr sé cara ‘s coimirce ar Phádraic dób [= dóibh] …’, Béaloideas 5 (1935) 263. 224 TOMÁS Ó CON CHEANAINN

Bheag Ð 7 ná cuir i ndia’ mo chínn rûm mé gan fios á’m cé ngoha mé, 7 fág mo ríocht á’m péin: Cuir é sin in do phóca 7 dearg leis a’ tine atá insiu ar a’ teallach do phíopa’. Chuir Mac Uí Laoidh [Laidhe] an tine-chreasach ina phóca insin 7 dhearg sé a phíopa leis a’ tine. Is geall le gurb ionann na córacha catha atá mar réamhrá ag Éamonn a Búrc le dhá scéal bhreátha a bhfuil an fharraige i gceist go mór iontu, mar atá ‘Murchadh Ó Laidhe agus Beag-Árainn’ agus ‘An tIascaire agus an Bád Sí’; agus is léir fiú amháin as an gcasadh atá curtha aige sa dara cuid den réamhrá sin go mbaineadh sé taitneamh mór as an gcuideachta airneáin a bhíodh aige:

Bhí inseo fadó 7 fadó bhí; gá mbeinn-se an uair sin ánn ní bheinn anois ánn; gá mbeinn anois 7 an uair sin ánn bheach sgéal úr nú sean-sgéal a’m, nú bheinn gan sgéal a’ bith. Ach ar aon nús, fébí mar tá an sgéal seo a’msa anocht ná ru sé leath cho math agaí-se san oíche amáireach!

Ar an gcuma a mbíodh an chuideachta sin fadó faoi chuing ag draíodóir na scéalaíochta, is léir gurb amhlaidh atá inniu féin ag lucht léite a chuid scéalta, fearacht na mná de Bhúrcach a bhfuil aistriúchán déanta aici ar scéal thuasluaite an iascaire agus an bháid sí.158

BUêOCHAS Tá mé faoi chomaoin mhór ag Ceann Roinn Bhéaloideas Éireann, Ollscoil na hÉireann, Baile Átha Cliath, as ucht cead a thabhairt dom inseacht Éamoinn a Búrc ar scéal Mhrocha Uí Laidhe agus Bheag-Árann, maille le sleachta eile agus athchló ar ghiotaí de théacsanna as Béaloideas, agus Pláta 1, a chur ar fáil anseo. Gabhaim buíochas le hOifigigh an Acadaimh agus le Siobhán Uí Raifeartaigh, Leabharlannaí, as deis le Pláta 2 a fhoilsiú. Tá mé an-bhuíoch freisin de na húdair eile seo a thug eolas agus cúnamh go fial fairsing dom: Brian Ó Curnáin (Scoil an Léinn Cheiltigh), Beairtle Ó Conaire (Múinteoir Scoile, An Spidéal), Nollaig Ó Muraíle (Ollscoil na Banríona), Micheál Ó Curraoin (Roinn Bhéaloideas Éireann), Pádraic Breathnach (Coláiste Mhuire gan Smál, Ollscoil Luimnigh), Diarmuid Ó Murchadha (Ollscoil na hÉireann, Corcaigh), Ruairí Ó hUiginn (Ollscoil na hÉireann, Maigh Nuad), Aoibheann Nic Dhonnchadha (Scoil an Léinn Cheiltigh), Proinsias Mac Aonghusa (Baile Átha Cliath),

158 ‘The Fisherman and the Fairy Boat’, in Bourke, ‘Economic necessity and escapist fantasy’. SEANCHAS AR MHUINTIR LAIDHE 225 Pádraic de Bhaldraithe (An Roinn Oideachais), An tAthair Éamonn Ó Conghaile (Tiar-Ní), Séamas Ó Concheanainn (Áras Shorcha Ní Ghuairim, Carna), Seán Ó Guairim (Carna), Eagarthóir ÉIGSE, agus go háirithe bean léinn de bhunadh Fhlathartach Iar-Chonnacht, is í sin, Ríonach uí Ógáin i Roinn Bhéaloideas Éireann.

TOMÁS Ó CON CHEANAINN Deilgne, Co. Chill Mhantáin

BRIAN Ó CUÍV (1916-1999)

BA DUAL athar do Bhrian suim a bheith aige i léann na Gaeilge, agus ’na dhúchas Corcaíoch go háirithe. Ba sa bhfilíocht (i saothar fhilí na Gaeilge clasaicí go háirithe) agus i gceart labhartha na teanga ba mhó a bhí spéis aige. B’ar The sounds of Irish (1921) ba mhó a thuill Shán Ó Cuív, an t-athair, clú: ba é a chum an ‘Leitiriú Shímplí’ as a dtáinig an fhoirm aduain sin ar a shloinne a d’fhág sé le hoidhreacht ag a mhuintir. Níor foilsíodh liosta de shaothar léinn Bhriain ina fhéilscríbhinn, mar atá, Celtica 21 (1990), ‘Essays in honour of Brian Ó Cuív’, agus ní liosta iomlán a chur ar fáil is cuspóir leis an nóta seo. Ba é The Irish of West Muskerry (1945) chéadsaothar mór Bhriain. Bhí seo ar cheann de shraith leabhar dá shórt a d’fhoilsigh Institiúid Ard-Léinn Bhaile Átha Cliath thart ar leathchéad bliain ó shin. Tá sé le tabhairt faoi deara inniu go bhfuil foghraíocht na Gaeilge ag imeacht i dtigh diabhail le tamall. Is beag aird atá ag cuid mhaith den aos óg ar theagasc Bhriain Í Chuív nó a leithéidí. Níor mhiste do chuid de chainteoirí an lae inniu – agus amhránaithe a chur san áireamh – scrúdú a dhéanamh ar chúrsaí foghraíochta le go dtuig- fidís, abair, gur /l´um/, /l´at/, etc. agus nach /L´um/, /L´at/, etc. is ceart a rá sna focail simplí seo liom, leat, etc. (i gcásanna nach mbeadh, b’fhéidir, ‘cumasc’ (sandhi) i gceist). Dhá bhliain ina dhiaidh sin d’fhoilsigh an Institiúid saothar eile le Brian, is é sin Cnósach focal ó Bhaile Bhúirne, cóiriú ar chnuasach a bhí bailithe ag Mícheál Ó Briain (†1942), duine de sheanchaithe Mhuscraí. Bhí cuid mhór eolais ag Brian ar sheanchas léinn agus béil Chorcaí agus tá léiriú tugtha aige air sin in ‘Béaltraidisiún Chorcaí – a chúlra’, Béaloideas 58 (1990) 181-202. Is píosa deas eile oibre ó Bhrian eagar an tsaothair ar a dtugann sé A contemporary account in Irish of a nineteenth-century tithe affray (1960), tuairisc ar achrann a tharla i gCarraig Tuathail i gCo. Chorcaí i mí Mheithimh 1833. Tuairisc í seo ó Dháibhí do Barra, údar a bhfuil clú air de bharr dhá phíosa eile ceapadóireachta, mar atá, Párliament na bhfíodóirí agus Corraghliocas na mBan Léirmhínithe. Saothar ón seachtú céad déag a raibh tóir ag scríobhaithe na Mumhan air is ea Párliament na mBan le Domhnall Ó Colmáin agus a bhfuil eagrán maith de againn ó láimh Bhriain Í Chuív (1952). Nuair a fuair Gearóid Ó Murchadha, chéadeagarthóir ÉIGSE, bás i mbliain a 1959 ba é Brian (a bhí ina léachtóir i gColáiste na 228 BRIAN Ó CUêV (1916-1999) hOllscoile ó 1953) a hainmníodh ina áit, agus an bhliain ina dhiaidh sin toghadh é ina Ollamh le Gaeilge Chlasaiceach sa gColáiste Ollscoile, Baile Átha Cliath. Ceapadh Brian ina Ollamh Sinsearach i Scoil an Léinn Cheiltigh, Institiúid Ard-Léinn Bhaile Átha Cliath, i 1967, agus i 1974 cuireadh cúram eagarthóireachta Celtica, iris an léinn Cheiltigh san Institiúid, air. Ar na haltanna iomadúla breátha dár scríobh Brian ar léann agus ar theanga na Nua-Ghaeilge clasaicí measaim gur féidir a rá gurb é ‘The phonetic basis of classical modern Irish rhyme’ (Ériu 20 (1966) 94-103) an ceann is tairbhí do lucht foghlama. B’iomaí mír as litríocht chráifeach na Meán-Ghaeilge agus na Nua-Ghaeilge a chuir Brian in eagar. Saothar stairiúil ó dheireadh an séú céad déag is ea Teagasc Críostaí Uí Mhaoil Chonaire, a chuir Brian in eagar faoin teideal ‘Flaithrí Ó Maolchonaire’s catechism of Christian doctrine’ (Celtica 1 (1950) 161-206). B’atheagar ar Aibidil Gaoidheilge & caiticiosma, nó mar a deir fo-theideal an eagráin nua, ‘Seaán Ó Cearnaigh’s Irish Primer of Religion published in 1571’, an saothar eagarthóireachta deiridh a rinne sé (1994). Tá tuairisc mhaith tugtha ag Brian san eagrán seo ar phrós na Gaeilge clasaicí, tuairisc atá inchomórtais le tráchtas Thomáis Uí Raithile ina eagrán féin de Desiderius (1941). Tugadh dhá chnuasach léachtaí ar Radio Éireann (i Sraith Thomáis Dáibhis) faoi threoir Bhriain i 1958 agus 1966 faoi seach, agus foilsíodh an dá chnuasach faoina eagarthóireacht mar Seven centuries of Irish learning 1000-1700 (1961) agus A view of the Irish language (1969). B’fhéidir go measfaí amach anseo ag lucht an léinn Cheiltigh agus ag staraithe na Meánaoise gurb é Catalogue of Irish language manu- scripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford and Oxford college libraries (2001) sméar mhullaigh a shaothair. Ba liosta le lua ar chuir Brian de dhánta na Gaeilge clasaicí in eagar in ÉIGSE, in Celtica agus in Ériu, gan trácht ar uimhir mhór de léirmheasanna tábhachtacha. Scoláire mór agus oibrí cumasach a bhí i mBrian: molann a shaothar léinn é.

TOMÁS Ó CON CHEANAINN R. A. BREATNACH (1911-2001)

PROFESSOR Risteard Breatnach, who died in April 2001, was the last surviving scholar of the school of Osborn Bergin. He studied under Bergin at University College Dublin, and subsequently, when editor of publications in Irish with Browne & Nolan Ltd., would regularly meet with him and with two other former teachers, Gerard Murphy and Daniel Binchy, for leisurely luncheon sessions at which the dis- cussion ranged over the entire history of the Irish language; these sessions formed part of the important but largely unrecorded oral tra- dition of the Irish-language scholarship of the period. This idyllic phase of his life would last only a few years. One of his favourite sto- ries was of meeting Bergin at the top of Grafton Street, some time towards the end of 1945. Risteard, barely 34, had just been appointed to the Chair of Irish Language and Literature at University College Cork, by the Senate of the National University of Ireland. Bergin, himself of Cork and with some experience of teaching ‘Celtic’ at the old Queen’s College there many years before, had heard the news and was singularly unimpressed. ‘I hear you’re going to Cork. You won’t like it. You’ll have a good student every seven years or so; take care of him.’ Bergin’s estimate may have been unduly pessimistic, but there is no denying the care taken by Professor Breatnach of his students as reflected in the many awards achieved by them in the Mansion House Scholarship and Travelling Studentship examinations of the National University. A selection of them, by then established in var- ious institutions of higher learning, would gratefully contribute the contents of Folia Gadelica, the Festschrift published in his honour following his retirement in the autumn of 1981. Not to be outdone, Risteard responded in polished verse, severally thanking each in a line that makes apposite reference to the subject of the individual contribution. Reckoning only such of his publications as appeared in learned journals, seventy separate articles, several of which contain more than one item, are enumerated in the Festschrift, and he would continue to be productive long into his retirement. Risteard Breatnach’s particular contribution to scholarship in Irish derives from three separate but interrelated sources: a knowledge of the history of the Irish language that rivalled that of Bergin, O’Rahilly, Murphy, Jackson and Greene, and that is scarcely approached by any present-day scholar; a familiarity with the modern dialects, extending to Scottish Gaelic and Manx, such as few others 230 SEÁN Ó COILEÁIN have possessed (one thinks of O’Rahilly and Wagner); an intellectual rigour and a keen linguistic sense informed by the best international theory and practice. As appropriate to one trained under Bergin, he displayed an early mastery of the language of classical poetry and of the rules that gov- erned its composition, as evidenced by his editions of ‘A poem on rime in scholastic verse’ and ‘Marbhna Fhearchoir Í Mháoil Chíaráin’ (Éigse vol. 3 (1941-2)). Comprehensive reviews of the edi- tions of more senior scholars, such as McKenna’s Aithdioghluim dána and O’Rahilly’s Desiderius, around the same time, confirmed the arrival of a new authority in the field. The abiding memory of many of his students will be of his mesmerizing declamation of selections from Knott’s Irish syllabic poetry, as he adapted his per- fect enunciation of the modern language to the phonetic require- ments of the poems. His scholarly work on the modern language began with his M.A. thesis on the Irish of his native Co. Kilkenny, of which a few native speakers still remained (Gaedhilg Cho. Chille Choinnigh, Coláiste na hOllscoile, Baile Átha Cliath, 1939). While never published in its entirety, this work is acknowledged by Wagner (Linguistic atlas and survey of Irish dialects) as the source of his information on pts. 6, 6a, North and South Kilkenny; Professor Breatnach would himself return to the subject as late as 1992 (Éigse vol. 26). He travelled extensively throughout the entire Gaeltacht area, and the writer recalls him in later years switching seamlessly to Donegal Irish when interviewing a candidate whose dialect it was. He had a special regard for Quiggin’s pioneering A dialect of Donegal, and for Tomás Ó Máille’s An béal beo as a thesaurus of the living language of the west. But it was to the Irish of West Munster that he would inevitably gravitate, partly because of geographical location, but primarily on account of its rich literary and oral tradition and its concomitant linguistic conservatism. Already, while at Browne & Nolan, he had produced a school edition of Séadna, a model of its kind, and had earlier assisted Gerard Murphy in the preparation of Dómhnall Bán Ó Céileachair’s Sgéal mo bheatha. In a typical act of pietas, he would return many years later to material he had collected from Maurice Mhuiris Ó Catháin, formerly of the Great Blasket, and form of it the little book Ar muir is ar tír (An Sagart, 1991), one of a very few trustworthy representations of West Kerry Irish published in literary form. (On an earlier visit to the Blasket, he had convened a meeting R. A. BREATNACH (1911-2001) 231 in the schoolhouse to try to establish what might induce the remain- ing inhabitants to stay on the Island. One of the assembled bachelors, who had not yet quite abandoned all hope, is said to have responded: ‘Árthach ban!’ Alas, such a remedy, if remedy it might have been, was not to be found.) The language of this area figures prominently in his published work, by way of subject and illustration, and also forms the basis of an appropriate scholarly idiom that characterises his writing in Irish, at the concision of which Seán Ó Ríordáin would constantly marvel. His Studies articles on the Irish-language policy of the State are as heartbreaking still to read as they must have been for him to write. Although emotionally and intellectually committed to the language, he was forced to conclude: ‘It would seem, then, whatever the future may hold for Connacht and Donegal Irish, that we must reconcile ourselves to the bitter truth that, after thirty years of control of our own affairs, the sun is about to set on the most literary, the most cul- tivated, the most influential of all Irish dialects’ (Studies, Summer 1956). His estimate of ‘10,000 souls in the whole of Kerry, Cork and Waterford today who habitually speak Irish as their vernacular’ would now probably suffice for the entire country. Similarly, his 1964 critique of An Coimisiún um Athbheochan na Gaeilge: an tuarascáil dheiridh was justified in the event. The Tuarascáil led to the ineffective ‘gríosófar’ White Paper on the Restoration of the Irish Language of 1965 and to a couple of desultory follow-up ‘progress reports’, but little else. Risteard Breatnach could not abide humbug, scholarly or otherwise. But the somewhat crusty exterior belied a warmhearted generosity of scholarship and character which revealed itself on further acquain- tance. He was incapable of dissemblance and could not tolerate it in others. He was a formidable adversary and a loyal friend. He main- tained unremitting standards in his life and work, and it is to a minor but revealing aspect of his work that we finally return. His facility for original verse composition in Irish, which could take the form of syllabic or stressed metre, has already been men- tioned. They were mainly occasional pieces, such as the Aisling on the vision of his friend, An tAthair Tadhg Ó Murchú, which was real- ized in the opening of Brú na Gráige in 1955. The following piece was his response to Professor Brian Ó Cuív, who in an article in Celtica 14 had demurred at the explanation previously offered by Professor Breatnach in Éigse 10 of the etymology of the phrase dia do bheatha. Professor Ó Cuív had appealed to the authority of 232 R. A. BREATNACH (1911-2001) An tAthair Peada(i)r, the by-form of whose name appears in the verse. Clearly, Professor Breatnach was not convinced; it would have been impossible to be offended by his witty and elegant response:

Rob dia do bheatha, a Bhriain chóir, ’s dia bheatha Bheadair oghmóir; géilleadh dúibh is docar dhamh, is focal rúin do fhriotal!

Beannacht Dé leis.

SEÁN Ó COILEÁIN Ollscoil na hÉireann, Corcaigh LÉIRMHEAS

The scribe in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Ireland: motiva- tions and milieu. Meidhbhín Ní Úrdail. Studien und Texte zur Keltologie. Herausgegeben von Erich Poppe, Band 3. Nodus Publikationen, Münster, 2000. 320 pp.

BUILDING on Breandán Ó Conchúir’s seminal Scríobhaithe Chorcaí (Baile Átha Cliath 1982), this book takes us on an excellent bio- graphical and bibliographical tour of perhaps the most renowned Cork scribal family, Muintir Longáin, who between them account for over 450 extant manuscripts in Irish. Three generations are repre- sented: Mícheál mac Peadair (c. 1693?-1770) of Glin, his son Mícheál Óg (1766-1837) of Carraig na bhFear and elsewhere, and three of Mícheál Óg’s sons, the twins Peadar (1801-?) and Pól (1801-66), and Seosamh (1817-80); a fourth generation, in the per- son of Mícheál mac Seosaimh, is briefly alluded to (pp 26, 123-4), biographical details concerning him apparently being scarce. The biographical section of the book (31-133) closely follows the work of Ó Conchúir in tracing the fortunes of the family, from func- tionaries of the Knights of Glin (what Mícheál mac Peadair’s posi- tion precisely was remains unclarified beyond the references of Liam Ó Danachair and Tadhg Ó Murchadha) to vagrant labourers, teach- ers and scribes in Co. Cork, and finally to the position of Scribe in the Royal Irish Academy occupied by Pól and by Seosamh. As the author remarks, ‘The provision of indexes and of catalogues of Gaelic manuscripts by Pól and Seosamh does not feature in the work of their grandfather’ (229). Nor, of course, does it feature in the work of many of their contemporaries. The antiquarian and educational revolutions of the early nineteenth century were a great boon to all such individuals who were disposed to take advantage of them. However, regular institutional employment for Irish scholars was a rare thing: Ó Donnabháin and Ó Comhraí come to mind, but Tomás Ó hIceadha and Brian Ó Luanaigh are perhaps more in parallel with Pól and Seosamh. It is reasonably clear that the Ó Longáin brothers, and John Fleming after them, were employed by the Academy as research assistants, and that the calligraphic component in Seosamh’s case came as an afterthought on the part of John Gilbert some time after Seosamh’s arrival there. Although the biographical research of both Ó Conchúir and Ní Úrdail is quite comprehensive, there is still work to be done. Mícheál 234 LÉIRMHEAS mac Seosaimh, mentioned above, is a case is point, as is the fleshing out of details here and there in the main biographies. For instance, Ní Úrdail follows Ó Conchúir in quoting the Inspector’s report of 1854 on Whitechurch National School, where Seosamh Ó Longáin was teaching, and in remarking that ‘it is not clear when exactly Ó Longáin commenced working as a national teacher’ (120, cf. Ó Conchúir, Scríobhaithe 155). One imagines that the files in the National Archives might be of assistance on this point, and indeed a glance at the register for Whitechurch shows that Joseph Long was appointed there in February 1849 (NAI National Schools, Co. Cork ED 2/8, f. 88). Distinguishing between the hands of the Ó Longáin scribes, partic- ularly those of the sons of Mícheál Óg, is a difficult task, and conclu- sions are rarely arrived at with total confidence. It is not surprising, then, to find welcome revisions of previous opinions in this book. NLI MS G 474, formerly thought to be divided between Seosamh and Peadar (on the basis of a late subscription on MS p. 196), is now to be taken as the work of Seosamh alone (26 n. 46, 104 n. 30). More importantly, NLI MS G 476, previously thought to be an eighteenth- century manuscript and the work of Mícheál mac Peadair, is now claimed to be much later, the work indeed of Peadar mac Mhíchíl (25 n. 42, 193 n. 21). This important identification, however, has impli- cations which have gone unnoticed by the author. The initial identifi- cation with Mícheál mac Peadair was made by Nessa Ní Shéaghdha (NLI Cat. Fasc. 10, p. 81) who based her opinion on the hand in American Irish Historical Society MS 1 (NLI, pos. 6566, manuscript itself is missing), dated 1611, which date is supposedly a slip for or an alteration from 1711, and signed by Mícheál mac Peadair. The hands of G 476 and American Irish Historical Society MS 1 do indeed appear to be identical, but so also do those of G 476 and G 156 (texts in both are believed to derive in part from MS 1), and Ní Shéaghdha had already ascribed G 156 to Peadar Ó Longáin (NLI Cat. Fasc. 4, p. 128). All three manuscripts are of vellum, and bear lit- tle similarity to the conventional hand of Mícheál mac Peadair with which we are familiar. Furthermore we should note Sir Thomas Phillipps’s remark regarding G 156: ‘This is a modern MS attempted to be made to look old. TP. Apparently by Tobacco or Peat water or Peat smoke’ (Ní Shéaghdha, loc. cit.); one might also mention the bogus signature of Aodhgán Ó Rathaille in G 476, p. 50, and the 1611 date in American Irish Historical Society MS 1. Comparison with other work suggests that all three are by Peadar Ó Longáin. LÉIRMHEAS 235 The problem with this is that American Irish Historical Society MS 1 is accepted by all, including Dr Ní Úrdail (37, 135), as the work of Mícheál mac Peadair, and the colophon at p. [98] of that manuscript as genuine. This colophon contains the only evidence for the early years of Mícheál mac Peadair, for his date of birth, and for his early association with the Knights of Glin, so that one would be loath to remove the manuscript from his corpus, especially as his next datable manuscript was written some thirty years later. It would appear, however, that we may have no other option. Perhaps the manuscript is a genuine copy of a lost original by Mícheál mac Peadair, in which case things are not so bad. For the moment, how- ever, the suspicion exists that with G 156, G 476, and American Irish Historical Society MS 1, someone was attempting to create Irish manuscripts of falsified antiquity. The book comes into its own from p. 134 on, as the author pains- takingly analyses the contents of the Ó Longáin corpus of manu- scripts under eight thematic classifications: Historical, Prose tales, Proverbs, Hagiographical, Verse (exclusively ‘Agallamh an Othair leis an mBás’), Anthologies, Medical, and Grammatical. Under Hagiographical (161-7), for instance, the identity is probed of a ‘mórleabhar meamraim’ circulating in Cork in the eighteenth cen- tury, and to which Mícheál mac Peadair had access. Two suggestions are advanced: Leabhar Meic Carthaigh Riabhaigh or Leabhar Uí Chruimín. The former, of course, otherwise known as the Book of Lismore, returned to Cork in 1815 where it remained until 1820. This we know thanks to the researches of the late Brian Ó Cuív. (The Duke of Devonshire’s agent at the time the book was sent to Cork was William Samuel Currey, not ‘Eugene Currey’ as given here, p. 189.) What we still do not know is what part if any was played by other scribes apart from Donnchadh Ó Floinn in the mutilation of the manuscript, if such accusations are not unfounded. The use of the manuscript at his period by Mícheál Óg is detailed particularly at pp 189-92. There follows (199-225) a discussion of the interaction of the Ó Longáin scribes with the printed medium. This is viewed in the context of the rise of the various learned societies in the early nine- teenth century and of the expressed ambition of those societies to publish material from Irish manuscripts. It is a moot point whether print culture was such an urban phenomenon, or as juxtaposed to a supposedly rural manuscript tradition as the author appears to suggest (208-9, 224-5). There is no shortage of Irish manuscripts which were 236 LÉIRMHEAS written in urban environments, and the print culture of the missal, the textbook and the ballad sheet was as much a rural phenomenon as the Irish manuscript. It is not improbable that the literate countryman had more contact with print than with manuscript. Perhaps it was the craft of printing itself which held urban associations for the scribes, but even in this regard one should note that Ó Casaide’s Gazetteer shows printing establishments at Fermoy, Mallow, Youghal and Skibbereen from the beginning of the nineteenth century – country towns well removed from the urban centre of Cork city. The question of direct scribal access to printed works in Irish is more straightforward. This is particularly the case with Mícheál Óg, as the manuscript evidence – admirably presented here (210-20) – shows him making transcripts of religious works such as Desiderius and Parrthas an anma, and also making Irish translations of works in English and Latin, for John Murphy, Bishop of Cork. (Some of the translations by Seosamh Ó Longáin of traditional tales in manuscript, referred to as not having survived (126 n. 27) are to be found in G 474 and G 517.) From this the author draws conclusions concerning the facility of the scribes for linguistic code-switching and ‘the increas- ing relevance of the English language in the scribe’s milieu’ (223). The book is somewhat bothered with a need to make inferences at every turn. Mícheál mac Peadair’s probable, but largely uncorrobor- ated, work for John O’Brien, Bishop of Cloyne and Ross, is set out at pp 40-41 and is elaborated on at pp 138-44, where O’Brien is referred to as Ó Longáin’s patron; by p. 205 Mícheál has become O’Brien’s amanuensis and, tentatively, his lexicographer. Again, the attraction that the political and religious poetry of Mícheál Óg held for scholars in the early years of the last century is referred to at pp 95ff and at p. 228. The author interprets the interest shown in Mícheál Óg by Torna, T. F. O’Rahilly and others, as an ideological one: ‘for them Mícheál Óg was the quintessence of true Irishness’ (228). This is possibly fair comment, as long as we acknowledge that there were many others who were viewed as embodying that same quintessence. It surely borders on the gratuitous, however, to pursue this to the point where it is suggested that ‘some, though not all’ of these commentators were sectarian in motivation (99). The wealth of detail and reference in the book, and the clear and structured way the subject has been approached and handled, make this an important scholarly addition to Irish manuscript studies. Although all might not agree with the contention (17) that this approach ‘contrasts with’ that of editorial work – I would take the LÉIRMHEAS 237 view that it is complementary – there can be no doubt that the end result is a valuable and worthwhile contribution to our knowledge of scribal practice in the modern period. Further micro-studies might be suggested: the totality of factors which determined the selection of material to be copied; the accuracy or otherwise of the texts of a given scribe or family of scribes, the methodology of the copyists, and the amount and varieties of editorial intrusion indulged in. For the present, however, Dr Ní Úrdail has placed us in her debt with this fine study of the Ó Longáin family.

PÁDRAIG Ó MACHÁIN Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies

Stairsheanchas Mhicil Chonraí: ón Máimín go Ráth Chairn. Conchúr Ó Giollagáin a chuir in eagar. Cló Iar-Chonnachta, Indreabhán, Conamara. 1999. 382 lch. Seo scéal a shaoil ó fhear a rugadh sa Máimín i gCeantar na nOileán i gConamara i 1919 agus a d’aistrigh lena mhuintir go Ráth Cairn nuair a bunaíodh Gaeltacht na Mí i 1935. Chaith sé seal san arm ar an Rinn Mhóir i nGaillimh aimsir an chogaidh agus lena linn sin phós sé bean óg as an Sconsa i Leitir Móir. Nuair a d’éirigh sé as an arm chuir sé faoi bail a mhuintire i nGaeltacht na Mí. D’fhulaing sé saol crua an sclábhaí feilme agus thairis sin chuir sé peiríocha na heitinne dhe ar feadh cúpla bliain; ach tá sé slán beo fós i Ráth Cairn. Dála a leithéid de sheanchaí ar chúrsaí an tsaoil i gcónaí is intleachtóir é Micil Chonraí (nó Chanraoi < Conry), cé nach fear scríb- hneoireachta é. Is é an chaoi a raibh scéal iontach seo a shaoil curtha ar téip aige nó gur casadh fear a dhiongbhála d’eagarthóir air i dtráth. Tá léirmheas maith cuimsitheach déanta ag Gearóid Denvir ar an leabhar tábhachtach seo in Béaloideas 69 (2001) 206-10. I gcuid dá thuairisc deir Denvir gurb é ‘… an téacs seo is gaire ar feadh m’eo- lais don bheathaisnéis bhéil, don oral biography mar a tugtar i mBéarla air san antraipeolaíocht, atá againn sa Ghaeilge.’ Ach an oiread lena thuairisc ar chruatan an tsaoil i gConamara, ní cuimhne cheanúil atá ag Micil ar mhúinteoirí na bunscoile. Bhí an bualadh agus an greadadh ag gabháil leis an múinteoireacht san am sin. Mar seo: Glaofaí suas ort an áit a raibh an clár dubh go mbeidís uiliug ag breathú ort agus thabharfaí dhá iarraidh dhuit ar chaon láimh 238 LÉIRMHEAS agus nuair a d’iontófá thart ag goil isteach in d’áit thabharfadh sé an bhróig sa tóin dhuit. Chrochfadh sé den talamh thú leis an mbróig. (72) Ní teist mhaith ar an oideachas a bhí faighte aige gurbh ó othar eile, múinteoir scoile as Contae Chill Chainnigh, in ospaidéal na heitinne in Peamount, a d’fhoghlaim sé le litir a scríobh abhaile (i mBéarla, ar ndóigh). Tá go deimhin ceisteanna daonnachta ag teacht chun tosaigh sa leab- har seo agus orthu sin tá iompar mídhaonna roinnt misinéaraí (sagairt d’Ord an tSlánaitheora) in aghaidh lucht déanta poitín i gCeantar na nOileán. Is ceist spéisiúil í seo: dá fhaide siar sa nGaeltacht dá dtéadh na sagairt sin gurbh ea ba gairbhe a bhíodh a n-iompar lena bpobal. Is léir gur mheasadar gur in aghaidh phobail iargúlta, pobal gan Béarla, a bhí an t-iompar garbh sin riachtanach. Is aisteach an scéal é agus go mba iad na daoine bochta saoithiúla céanna sin a chaomhnaigh an saibhreas sib- hialta daonnachta atá ar fáil sa gcnuasach amhrán a bhailigh sagart eile, an tAthair Tomás Ó Ceallaigh, mar atá, Ceol na nOileán. (Rinne Micil Chanraoi agus John, a dheartháir – fear a chuidigh le Micil leis an dírb- heathaisnéis seo freisin – cuid mhór taifeadta ar amhráin Cheantar na nOileán níos deireanaí.) Seo sampla den doilfeacht lena mbíodh na misinéaraí ag suathadh an phobail: ‘… chuir na Giúdaigh chun báis ár slánaitheoir … ach tá sibhse ag siúl air chuile lá,’ agus an chrois thuas san aer aige agus bhíodh chaon uaill aige ar an altóir. An chéad rud eile chaith sé an chrois amach os cionn na ndaoine agus buaileadh ar an mballa í … os cionn bhosca an fhaoistean agus thit sí anuas. ‘Siúiligí anois air!’ a deir sé, ‘siúiligí air!’, agus nuair a bhí an oiread seo ráite aige chaithfeadh sé ar a dhá ghlúin ar an altóir é féin, chuirfeadh sé a dhá láimh suas san aer ag iar- raidh ar Dhia a bheith trócaireach leo, maithiúnas a thabhairt dhóibh. Bhí sé ar an ealaín seo ar feadh an oiread seo nóiméadachaí agus scantródh sé thú san am an chuma a bhí sé a chur air fhéin agus na deora ag tíocht anuas ar a éadan. B’iontach an t-aisteoir a bhí ann, bhí sé iontach. (84) Níl fhios agam an raibh in imeachtaí mar sin ach aisteoireacht; ach cuimhnimis gur ‘intleachtóir béil’ é Micil Chanraoi, mar, a dúirt Gearóid Denvir faoi. Seo an bhail a chuir na misinéaraí ar α′νϑρωπος bocht áirithe: LÉIRMHEAS 239 Oíche amháin thugadar an fear seo amach ar an altóir, dúirt siad leis an slua go raibh sé ag goil ag spáint an diabhal anocht dóibh. Bhí an diabhal teagtha ann mar gheall ar an bpoitín agus dúirt sé: ‘ba shiod é an diabhal,’ a bhí sé ag goil a spáineadh dhóibh mar níor thug an fear seo mórán géilleadh céard a bhí ar bun acu. Tháinig sé ag teach an phobail, ar chuma ar bith, dúradh leis, is dóigh gob in é an fáth ar dúradh leis é go dtabharfaí amach ar an altóir é. Agus tugadh amach ar an altóir é, fear bocht a raibh féasóig air. Fear nach raibh, b’fhéidir, a bhricfeasta ná mórán leis an dinnéar aige, agus iad seo a bhí ag at leis an méid a bhíodar a ithe, ag tabhairt an fhear bocht sin amach, ag déanamh pléisiúr agus ag magadh faoi ar an altóir, chuirfeadh sé ag smaoiniú thú cén sórt daoine a bhí sna sagairt seo. (85)

Seo staidéar ar chuid de nádúr an duine go cinnte. Bhuaileadh na sagairt seo fir agus mná mar a dhéanfaí le coirpigh sa seansaol. Bhí smacht le cur i bhfeidhm agus ómós le taispeáint d’údarás na heaglaise mar a tuigeadh é:

Chonaic mé fear amháin ar a dhá ghlúin agus muid ag goil isteach tráthnóna sa séipéal agus é (an sagart) ag cur ceistean- naí air, agus bhuailfeadh sé iarraidh ar thaobh dhá leiceann agus an chéad rud eile bhuailfeadh sé ar an taobh eile é. B’uafásach an spídiúlacht é sin a thabhairt do dhuine ar bith. Bhuail siad a bhean le parasol agus mná nach iad a bhí ag déanamh an phoitín agus a bhí ag séanadh nach raibh siad á dhéanamh mar bhí faitíos orthu. (83-4)

Ach – Dia á réiteach! – níorbh iad sagairt an tSlánaitheora amháin a thugadh spídiúlacht do dhaoine. Bhí bean aonraic i dTiar-Ní a raibh clann óg uirthi; ‘bhí gaol agam féin léi,’ a deir Micil linn. Chuaigh a fear go Meiriocá tamall le airgead a shaothrú. Ar aon chaoi bhíodh fear den bhaile ag cuidiú léi leis an obair. Ach tháinig an fear sin thar teorainn agus chuir sé cúram páiste ar an mbean seo,

… agus bhí sé sin uafásach san am. Tabharfaí t’ainm amach den altóir – nó tugadh amach den altóir é. Ach tharraing sé [i.e. an sagart] an bhean bhocht sin i ndiaidh curraigh ó Thír an Fhia go dtí An Cheathrú Rua agus rópa ceanglaithe uirthi, rópa faoina lár agus í i ndiaidh an churrach. Nárbh uafásach an rud ag duine le déanamh é, duine sagart a 240 LÉIRMHEAS cheapfá a bheadh ag déanamh dlí Dé go mbeadh truaí aige dhi faoin rud a tharla dhi. Ach ní hin é a rinne sé, thug sé sciúirseáil di, bhuail sé í agus í a tharraingt i ndiaidh curraigh. (82) Níorbh fhiú a bheith ag caint ar ábhar an leabhair seo gan lua a dhéanamh ar na heachtraí barbartha sin, ós iad is fearr a léiríonn croílár tuisceana Mhicil Chanraoi ar shaol crua a mhuintire. Ní gá de léirmheas orthu anseo ach iad a inseacht arís. Tá mír eile faoin mí- dhaonnacht atá luaite sa leabhar nár cheart gan athlua a dhéanamh air, an spídiúlacht a thugtaí do chuid de na hothair in otharlann Theach an Chontae (St. Joseph’s níos deireanaí) in Áth Truim, mar a raibh Micil Chanraoi fostaithe tráth. Bhí cupla fear ag obair ann agus ba cheart iad a bheith sna cam- paí i Germany bhíodar chomh dona sin do na seandaoine. Nárbh uafásach an ceann é, nuair a bheadh an fear ag scréachaíl le pian, b’fhéidir ag fáil bháis le cancer nó hé bith cén donacht a bheadh air, chrochfaí suas a leaba – bhéarfadh sé ar íochtar na leaba agus chrochfadh sé suas é chomh fada is a d’fhéadfadh sé é agus ligfeadh sé anuas ar an urlár é agus i ndiaidh ag rá: ‘shut up, you fucker, you!’ Bhí chuile ainm, dhá bhrocaí, á thabhairt ar mo dhuine bocht nach raibh aige ach an oiread seo laethantaí nó an oiread seo uaireantaí le maireachtáil … Rud eile – nuair a bhrocódh sé a leaba cuirfí siar ina bhéal é ag rá leis gan é a dhéanamh aríst. Bhí an cumhacht imithe as corp an fhear seo agus an bhail sin ag goil air agus dá ndéarfadh duine sa seomra leis na nuns an íde seo agus dúirt siad é, agus sé a déarfaí: ‘ó na bac leis sin!’ a déarfadh an dream a bhí á dhéanamh, ‘tá sé sin imithe as a mheabhair,’ agus chreidfí iad. (271) Tá na foilsitheoirí le moladh as an seanchas fíorthábhachtach seo a chur i gcló. Tá tuairisc mhaith tugtha ag an Eagarthóir ar an ‘Modh Eagarthóireachta’. Ó thaobh na teanga tá ann freisin ‘Aguisín Foclóra’, ‘Aguisín na nAinmneacha agus na Sloinnte’ agus ‘Aguisín na Logainmneacha’. I gcás na sloinnte níor mhiste aire ar leith a dhíriú ar ghné spéisiúil áirithe, is é sin, go n-úsáidtear foirmeacha séimhithe den sloinne gan Ó a bheith leo, e.g. Maidhc Churraoin. Is é an scéal céanna ag Chanraoi é, e.g. Pat Chanraoi, agus ag sloinnte eile san áit thiar, e.g. Chadhain, Cheara, Ghriallais, Ghríofa.

TOMÁS Ó CON CHEANAINN Deilgne, Co. Chill Mhantáin LÉIRMHEAS 241 Early Irish farming: a study based mainly on the law-texts of the 7th and 8th centuries A.D. Fergus Kelly. Early Irish Law Series 4. Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1997. xix + 751 pp.

THIS new addition to the Early Irish Law Series breaks new ground in two ways. Fergus Kelly’s own Guide to early Irish law (Dublin 1988) had previously made one departure by offering a study of the content of the texts rather than an edition. Yet it might have turned out that it was simply a handbook to what otherwise remained a series of texts. This new book has ensured that the series as a whole will follow the ‘Texts and Studies’ model, offering a home both for editors and historians. This is all to the good, since, although the need for editions could hardly be more acute, a subject retains its momentum best if it advances on more fronts than one. The second departure is indicated by the adverb ‘mainly’ in the sub-title. It is entirely true that the great bulk of the textual evidence comes from the laws; indeed, the very success with which this book employs legal evidence in the study of a subject not inherently legal is remarkable. It shows better than ever before how fruitful for the historian is the propensity of early Irish lawyers for poking their noses into almost every corner of life. Yet this book is only ‘mainly’ based on legal sources; moreover, the author has only mainly based his investigation on textual sources of any kind. Exemplary though he has been in seeking out evidence in different kinds of text, the book draws immense strength from the author’s interest in the mate- rial evidence supplied by the archaeologist and from the ease with which he moves in the sphere of botanical and zoological classifica- tion. Figures on high crosses, illustrations in illuminated manu- scripts, analyses of the bones found in excavations – all are put to good use. Very few works in medieval European history have been so successful in bridging the gap between the intellectual modi operandi of text-based history, archaeology and the life sciences. The particular way in which the bridge has been constructed is through a preoccupation with categories of animals and plants. Hence, after an Introduction, we move from cattle in Chapter 1 to sheep, goats, pigs and horses in Chapter 2; then on to smaller ani- mals, hens, geese, ducks and the like in Chapter 3. Once this funda- mental discussion has been completed, Kelly turns to the more legal topics of offences by and against animals, and then to accidents and diseases affecting livestock. This account of livestock occupies almost the first half of the book, which then turns to crops, and so 242 LÉIRMHEAS back to its classification of the things to be found on an early Irish farm: types of cereals and other crops. To the account of the princi- pal sources of food, livestock farming and the growing of crops, is added a chapter on hunting and gathering. So far, then, the preoccu- pation has been with the things, animate and inanimate, that helped to feed and clothe the early Irish population. With this approach, it is especially fruitful to draw on archaeology as well as texts. Kelly then turns to diet, without which any consideration of farming would be an account of the players without remembering the point of the game. The main part of the book concludes with chapters on farm labour and on tools. That is the end of the main text, but we still have two appen- dices, one of legal texts and the other on units of measurement. The texts do not include the most important legal sources, Bretha Comaithchesa and its satellites, still not critically edited but too large an enterprise for an appendix, and Críth Gablach, which was edited by D. A. Binchy more than half a century ago. The texts in Appendix 1 are short, generally less than a page in length, and mostly come from a single (though composite) manuscript, TCD MS 1337 (H. 3. 18). Even when they are Old Irish, they are not normalised, which is sensible given that they are generally to be found in only one manuscript. They are also given a translation and a commentary, all the more useful since short texts are often the most difficult, and since the vocabulary of material things can be especially tricky. Early Irish farming is not just a major work of scholarship; it has a completeness that can only derive from long years of preparation and a wide background knowledge. One note of caution, however, may be sounded. The evidence is sometimes drawn from texts far removed in date from the book’s chronological centre of gravity in the seventh and eighth centuries. The reader needs to note, therefore, when an item of information comes, say, from fourteenth-century annals or from a sixteeenth- or seventeenth-century English colonist. Admittedly, farming practices may sometimes have been so stable that such sources can be used alongside a legal tract of some eight centuries earlier, but this cannot be guaranteed. One of the many strengths of the book is that its evidence does indeed come mainly from a single period, c. 650-800, and so reveals farming practices current at that time; remarks on patterns of change are extras. Similarly, the approach adopted means that the author’s understand- ing of how early Irish farming worked as a whole, within its social LÉIRMHEAS 243 setting, emerges from the detail and from particular observations. It may be all the more dependable for this very reason.

T. M. CHARLES-EDWARDS University of Oxford

Church organization in Ireland A.D. 650 to 1000. Colmán Etching- ham. Laigin Publications, Maynooth, 1999. viii + 538 pp.

THIS formidable book is not for the general reader hoping for a uade mecum to the Early Irish church. Yet even non-historians can scarcely ignore its topic, given the central role played by the church in early medieval Ireland. For example, students of Old Irish litera- ture will surely be curious about the workings of the ecclesiastical institutions which produced such a wealth of manuscripts and texts. According to the accepted wisdom of an earlier time, best elabo- rated in John Ryan’s Irish monasticism (1931), the early Irish church was essentially monastic from beginning to end. That rather static view was superseded by the dynamic model proposed by Kathleen Hughes in The church in early Irish society (1966), a book which was well received by Irish historians. She argued that an original diocesan structure introduced by the Roman mission to Ireland in the fifth cen- tury gradually gave way in the sixth and seventh centuries to a monas- tic system ruled by abbots with far-flung paruchiae of dependent houses, and that the latter system degenerated in the ninth and tenth centuries as a result of secular infiltration. More recently Richard Sharpe (‘Some problems concerning the organization of the church in early medieval Ireland’ Peritia 3 (1984) 230-70) proposed another model whereby episcopal, monastic and secular elements were accommodated in a single hybrid ecclesiastical system which com- bined continuity and diversity. Enter the present author with yet another model: the Irish church as ‘a tripartite organization, episcopal, abbatial, and coarbial, the three being interdependent and inclusive in a single multifaceted organizational model’ which also allowed for their being simultaneously held by one or two office-holders in a vari- ety of permutations. Thus the three elements of Hughes’s and Sharpe’s models are still in place, but the possibilities are more complex. Aside from its theory, the most novel feature of this study is its heavy use of Old Irish sources, especially the secular laws. This emphasis not only redresses the previous bias towards Latin sources, 244 LÉIRMHEAS it also testifies to the fact that by the seventh century the church and its affairs were central to Irish society. Indeed, given Etchingham’s exploitation of these legal sources with their highly technical termi- nology, it would have helped to provide a glossary of Old Irish and Latin terms (they can be tracked down via the General Index). Chronologically, the book covers the period 650-1000, termini which the author rather defensively argues were determined by the availability and character of the evidence. Indeed, on this basis, one could argue that his study should have been even more strictly lim- ited to 700-900. As for the crucial (and dark) century before 650 when Irish ecclesiastical organisation took shape, its omission is understandable, but it leaves the book without its proper opening chapter, rather like an acephalous manuscript. Structurally, the book has eleven chapters, the first five and the last of which will probably be most useful to the lay reader. They deal with methodology (ch. 1), previous scholarship (ch. 2), models of ecclesiastical power and organization as represented in contem- porary documents (chs 3-4), the reality of jurisdiction (ch. 5), and a valuable summary of the author’s hypotheses in the final chapter (11). The intervening chapters (6-10) deal with specific organiza- tional issues. Among these, relegated to a single chapter (8), is a descriptive sketch of Irish monasticism whose main purpose appar- ently is to pave the way for a discussion (chs. 9-10) of the manaig, a loose term for a variety of persons subject to ecclesiastical authority. Even the most sceptical reader will have to admire the tenacious way in which the author holds to his thesis and weaves his tripartite theme into the fabric of every chapter. Also admirable is the comprehensive coverage of sources, ver- nacular and Hiberno-Latin. Very few primary or secondary sources have escaped the author’s scrutiny. Suprisingly, he has little to say about the canonical grades of the church and the related literature; the subject seems to have been a casualty of his interest in what he calls the ‘functionary grades’ or officers of the church as defined by native law. And yet the notion of the canonical grades is fundamen- tal to Irish ecclesiastical organisation and influential even in secular law (for example, in Críth Gablach). One might also have expected more use of the Old Irish glosses on the Pauline Epistles in Würzburg M. P. Th. F. 12, especially those on the Epistle to Titus, which deals directly with ecclesiastical officers. This is not an easy book to read: it carries the scars of its conver- sion from a doctoral dissertation, most notably a prose style that is LÉIRMHEAS 245 sometimes turgid and over-deliberative. Yet it has outstanding qual- ities, including its comprehensive coverage of sources, meticulous attention to textual detail, scrupulously fair reporting of previous scholarship, and well-organized chapters, all of which sets a high tone for future discussion of this controversial topic. And it marks a new milestone in our progress towards understanding how the early Irish church was organized and functioned.

PÁDRAIG P. Ó NÉILL University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Conversing with angels and ancients: literary myths of medieval Ireland. Joseph Falaky Nagy. Four Courts Press, Dublin. 1997. xi + 356 pp.

Pàdraig (is an rudhadh ’na ghruaidh) Ma leanas tu, mo ghaisgich, gu stailceach sa cheum sin, cha toir mi branndaidh no rùm dhuit, no tì làn siùcair no dèilidh.

Oisein (ri miolaran) Na bi gu dona nis, abstoil, don t-seana dhallan ’s e rùiste. Bidh mi rèidh riut, Mhic Ailpein, ’s gur ann agad an siùcair.

Patrick (getting red in the face): ‘If you carry on so stubbornly in that way, my hero, I won’t give you any brandy or rum, or sugary tea or jam.’

Ossian (fawningly): ‘Oh apostle, don’t be bad now to the poor blind old man. I will give in to you, son of Alpin, since it’s you that have the sugar.’ (Collected poems and songs of George Campbell Hay, ed. M. Byrne (Edinburgh 2000) 31)

Thus the Scottish poet George Campbell Hay, updating for the twen- tieth century the dialogue launched in the Middle Ages between the aged fénnid Oisein and the representative of the new order, Saint 246 LÉIRMHEAS Patrick. As in many of the encounters highlighted by Professor Nagy in his excellent study, Patrick is draped with the insignia of literate, establishment culture: when Oisein bounds into the room the minis- terly saint patiently folds his Church Monthly, puts aside his specta- cles, and gives him previews of his coming sermon; Oisein for his part will have none of it and threatens to rough Patrick up for pro- nouncing Fionn to be in Hell. There is even a nice literate/non-liter- ate misinterpretation: Patrick tells Oisein that if he converts he will be able to sing an eternal Halleluiah, but Oisein baulks at the idea of endlessly droning Thalla laoghaibh ‘Get moving, calves’. The ‘dialogic encounter’, as Conversing with angels and ancients makes abundantly clear, has been a vital part of Irish literature from its inception. Indeed, as Nagy shows, the model of the dialogue gives that literature a productive framework for exploring the origins of the relationship between oral and literary modes. In a recent study of the nineteenth-century periodical press in Gaelic Scotland (Scottish Gaelic Studies 20 (2000) 67-87) Sheila Kidd has noted ‘the emer- gence of the còmhradh as the preferred prose genre for the discus- sion of social issues’, showing the way in which in ‘a period of unprecedented social change’, including a new and more prominent role for literacy, the use of stock characters presenting and debating news and issues helped readers and listeners to negotiate the pot- holes on the road to the modern world – and helped the authorial establishment to steer their audiences. Her study incidentally high- lights the importance of Nagy’s monograph in two ways. First, it demonstrates the continuity and centrality of the dialogue as a pan- Gaelic literary genre; thus, rather than being a study of one detailed aspect of the tradition, it has applications for the wider field of Irish and Scottish Gaelic studies. More importantly, in showing some of the same contextual stresses to which Nagy points in explaining the cultural background to the early medieval encounters, it suggests that we are dealing with a phenomenon which transcends early medieval Ireland both temporally and geographically. There is cer- tainly room to revisit this material with different aims than Nagy’s; most especially, to look more closely at the dialogue as a genre throughout the span of . Nagy sets out his own task as the exploration of ‘dialogic points of reference … in order to understand how they reflect on the cul- tural significance of the acts of writing and reading among the literati of early medieval Ireland’ (p. 7). These range from the authorial Patrick’s struggles with voices in his head and speaking letters, LÉIRMHEAS 247 through ’s being whipped by an angel and his caution about mysteries, to the pivotal roles of charioteers and outlaws in bridging gaps between the old and the new. The result is a provocative and witty tour de force which, as well as breaking new ground in terms of the way in which early Irish literature is discussed critically, also opens up new seams in the raw material itself. That raw material is presented in model form, with full, clear translations aiding the progress of the argument in the body of the text, and full originals presented in the footnotes, allowing for closer or contrary readings. The episodes explored by Nagy shed much-needed light on the prob- lematic interface between new and old, Christian and pagan, saint and hero, literate and oral, in the nascent literature of medieval Ireland, in both Latin and the vernacular. Crucially, the approach he takes allows us to witness the prolonged diffidence of medieval lit- erary communities in taking stances on these various ‘dioscuric’ categories. The impressive self-consciousness of early Irish litera- ture is exposed, and Nagy points the way towards the latent oppor- tunities the literature presents to take it as a test case for the examination of critical approaches, particularly the semiotic. He mostly manages to convince that the authors of early Irish texts were themselves acutely aware of signs and their potency, although we may wish to be more cautious about the idea that ‘the fénnid is a semiotician’ (293). One of the real successes of the book is in its approach to the hagiographical material, especially the seventh-century strand, as lit- erature and not just an historical quarry. We are thus able to view the likes of Patrick and Columba as characters within an ever-evolving series of texts, rather than as fixed historical reference points or, con- versely, mere propagandistic pieces in a game of monastic power- chess. Equally, for instance in his treatment of the relationship between Paul’s writings and Patrick’s Confessio, we are able to see scripture as textual rather than dogmatic inspiration for early writers, presenting not ‘soviet-style’ templates for acceptable behaviour, but rather intellectual and literary strategies capable of re-use in new sit- uations. This expands into a superb intertextual reading of Muirchú via the Confessio and of Tírechán via Muirchú. Nonetheless, there are some disappointments even in these first chapters, which seem the most groundbreaking and successful in the book. Nagy appears to be going to explore the notion of dialogic encounters within the sensibly contained context of the Book of Armagh (23-5), but leaves behind these useful parameters without 248 LÉIRMHEAS much of a backward look somewhere in the midst of Chapter 2. He thus fails to make the most of the possibilities here, since the Book of Armagh contains not only Patrick’s Confessio, Muirchú and Tírechán, but also the Dialogi of Sulpicius Severus. Surely there might have been some exploration of the literary, especially the generic import of this text? More to the point, this seems a missed opportunity to wrestle with notions of audience, of manuscript con- text, of manuscript as authority and relic. All these topics surface from time to time, but are observed and used rather than confronted and interrogated. Instead Nagy continues to work further and further into later Patrician material – all of which is salutary and he makes good use of, for instance, the Tripartite Life. But, although he does warn at the outset of the book that his is a folkloristic approach, and although he usually gives some basic data when he introduces each new Patrician text, I felt a cumulative unease at the way in which the discussion reads these texts’ ‘signs’ over against each other, but without ever really addressing fundamental, mechanical questions of intertextuality. To what extent are the later Patrician texts’ narrative creations based on ‘readings’ of earlier ones? This is implied, for example, on p. 76, where a later story is held to ‘confirm’ the ‘affin- ity and contrast between the figures of Patrick and Óengus’, an affin- ity educed by Nagy from Muirchú and Tírechán. But what kind of confirmation is this: the confirmation that that was what was going on in the seventh-century texts, or a confirmation that later Patrician authors read these characters in the same way as Nagy? A similar unease applies to aspects of the third, predominantly Columban chapter. In contrast to the first chapter on Patrick, Nagy here seems less securely anchored in the overall literary and theo- logical context, and less interested in understanding the dialogues between, for instance, Adomnán and his own models. In describing Adomnán’s important vignette in which Columba reveals the nature of his ability to engage in revelatory dialogue with the universe in general (Vita Columbae i 43), Nagy notes the Pauline influence on the passage, but fails to point out what most previous commentators have, namely that Adomnán borrows his description from Gregory the Great’s Dialogi. Again, it would surely be useful to explore the influence of such a connection. This is not the only borrowing from the Dialogi which Adomnán employs: in VC ii 44, the relic proces- sion around the island of Iona, which relieves the countryside from drought, is modelled on a similar miracle in Gregory the Great. Here, it seems to me, a greater opportunity has been missed by Nagy. His LÉIRMHEAS 249 exploration of this episode (150-1) is keen on the ‘“bookishness” of the ritual representation’ in which Columba’s writings act as ‘pro- phylactic relics’, but we can go further and see how Adomnán him- self, probably the architect in reality as well as the author in writing of this ritual procession, has engaged in dialogue with other texts, not just as literary models but as sources of creatively adaptable ideas for arguing, pleading and praying with his patron saint. Indeed, the dialogues between Adomnán and his sources, and importantly between Adomnán and Columba (Adomnán tells us (VC ii 45) of two incidents in which he berates Columba – satirises him effectively, into getting the direction of the wind changed) are not touched by Nagy. The result is that here, as increasingly in the latter portions of the book, there is a sense of the critical destination becoming much more important than the passing countryside. On two occasions, at least, it seems to me, he crucially misses the Christian, spiritual import of episodes in VC. One is the image of Columba the scribe, especially the miracle in which he reveals that Baithéne has only missed out one iota from his text. To Nagy this is further sign of Columba’s ‘devotion to texts’ and his being ‘an ideal proofreader’. But what is this episode really about? Two recent studies by Jennifer O’Reilly (in Spes Scotorum/Hope of Scots: St Columba, Iona and Scotland, ed. Dauvit Broun and T. O. Clancy (Edinburgh 1999) 159-211; and in Studies in the cult of Saint Columba, ed. C. Bourke (1997) 80- 106) reveal its roots in ideals of humility and monastic obedience and show the ways in which, rather than consistently ‘bookish’, Columba’s portrait in VC instead involves a tension between a sus- picion of learnedness and a love of knowledge. This is a crucial observation, since it situates the failure of Columba to have things written down within a longstanding literary trend of suspicion of religious writing and book-learning, by means of an exploration of patristic writings of the sort which we know Adomnán used and was influenced by. This sort of monastic tradition, as much as the more critical connections which Nagy employs, may shed light on the encounter between Columba and the youth at Loch Febail, in which his monks are forbidden from hearing the youth’s revelations. This does not, of course, invalidate Nagy’s methods – far from it – but it does, I think, suggest ways in which his reading may be contingent as much on his overall critical stance as on the internal intellectual framework of the individual texts. The other problematic episode is that of the death of the poet 250 LÉIRMHEAS Crónán (152-4; cf. VC i 42). To Nagy, ‘Columba functions here as a representative of literary culture, to which the poet, crossing over, appeals for a hearing and perhaps even a transcription. Columba, however, does not elicit performance, nor does he allow the per- former the satisfaction of performing’ (153). Here the motivation of Columba seems to be misunderstood by Nagy as suspicion of poets, and even hostility; the central themes in his eyes are poetry, perfor- mance, preservation. But what is Columba’s refusal to ask for a poem from Crónán really about? Whatever the poet utters will be the last things that he will say before he dies. Columba knows this, and does not want Crónán to engage in frivolity on the brink of death. To the audience, monastic or otherwise, surely the central themes of the passage are death, the shortness of life, the need to live for the moment of judgement and not ‘utter idle words’? Here is one instance, certainly, where the discourse employed by Nagy seems to force the evidence unwillingly along his predeter- mined route. There are others, both in the Columban chapter and elsewhere. The sense of pushing the evidence is particularly acute when engaging in double semiotic twists, e.g. ‘Even more intriguing is that Brigit produces a book for someone who takes on her headache, just as Patrick and company produce a book, a memorial volume as it were, when Odrán takes on a death perhaps meant for Patrick’ (238). The limb along which the argument preceding this statement has inched here creaks ominously, and the misjudged zeugma on the word ‘produce’ threatens to snap it. Although Nagy’s investigations of the valencies of the sign of the charioteer are both fascinating and provocative, there are repeated instances of feeling that we are being led too far from the framework of the texts them- selves. In the context of the Patrician texts he studies, his argument certainly seems sound: ‘Clearly, the motif of charioteering is a vehi- cle for the definition and exploration of saintly power and for the sorting out of the elements of society toward which the saint is sym- pathetic or antipathetic … The loss of the auriga is an attempt to solve the conflict inherent in the figure of the saint as he or she develops in Irish Christianity’ (246-7). But increasingly in this and the subsequent chapter, the inventive connections and through-readings of texts begin to take on the aspect of Aed mac Bricc’s chariot sailing over the forests, and we the char- ioteers asked to cover our eyes as the saint works his miracle (cf. 239). Perhaps the keenest instance of this is his discussion of Tromdámh Guaire (307-17). This is expertly situated in an interplay LÉIRMHEAS 251 of texts about the recovery of tradition by calling up the shades of the heroes of old, in the chapter called ‘Tracking down the past’. This placement is illuminating in many respects – but how can one get through an extended discussion of this tale, with such a witty author as one’s guide, and never once get the impression that the tale is funny, and meant to be so? Compared with the hyperbolic satire in the tale, admittedly with a sharp purpose, Nagy’s reading seems oddly po-faced: ‘Senchan is forced to take seriously the tenuous channels of communication among different social classes which enable the marginal Marbán to contend with the poets and, in the long run, provide for the revitalization of the poetic profession as presented in this tale’ (309-10). In short, for all the inventiveness of the critical approach in this book, and despite the impressive range of texts it manages to scruti- nize productively, I worry about the extent to which the nature of the discourse engages in feats played out on the surface of the texts, leaping over gaps, driving a straight path. This is heroic criticism. Yet I came away from it unsure of how its agility deepens our abil- ity to interrogate the texts; uncertain, really, what to do with it, except applaud.

THOMAS OWEN CLANCY University of Glasgow

A single ray of the sun: religious speculation in early Ireland. John Carey. Celtic Studies Publications no. 3. Andover and Aberyst- wyth, 1999. x + 123 pp.

THIS is a delightful and unusual book: delightful, because the author wears his learning lightly, as he speculates about the nature of reli- gious beliefs in early Ireland; and unusual, because its topic, theol- ogy in its broadest sense (the nature of God, man and the universe), is rarely broached among contemporary scholars of early Christian Ireland, who prefer to write about its spirituality and its biblical exe- gesis. The book comprises three discrete essays whose very titles imply the tensions at work. Essay 1, ‘The baptism of the gods’, argues that early Irish Christians reconciled the Christian notion of a fallen world with their belief in an idyllic otherworld by making the ‘the old gods’ descendants of Adam, who ‘somehow escaped the conta- 252 LÉIRMHEAS gion of the Fall’. Appropriately, Carey makes his case with a blend of textual evidence from Hiberno-Latin Christianity and vernacular mythology. Essay 2, ‘The ecology of miracles’, examines in detail the treat- ment of miracles in De mirabilibus sacrae scripturae. This work, composed by an anonymous Irishman in 655, discusses some of the most striking miracles of scripture. While conventional wisdom regards the author’s main achievement as his rationalistic approach to miracles, Carey offers a more subtle interpretation, arguing that the author sought to explain in detail how God, even in the work- ing of miracles, respected the natural order and the integrity of nature. Essay 3, ‘The resurrection of the world’, focuses on a much- neglected Middle Irish tract, In tenga bithnua, a highly imaginative retelling of the history of Christian salvation culminating with Final Judgement. In a remarkable (if not convincing) tour de force, Carey compares that work’s explanation of the resurrection with ideas on the same theme developed by the Irish philosopher John Scottus Eriugena in his Periphyseon (De divisione naturae). He speculates ‘that Eriugena may have been exposed before leaving Ireland to a range of ideas about the resurrection of the world’, such as one finds in In tenga bithnua; and that later on the continent he found ‘a more sophisticated and spiritualised version of the concept in the writings of Maximus the Confessor’ (p. 103). It would be interesting to have a response from Eriugenian scholars. Especially welcome is the author’s citing of numerous (and lengthy) supporting passages from Old Irish and Hiberno-Latin, with good translations. Some suggestions about the latter follow. Page 8, line 15, supply ‘us’ after ‘tell’; p. 9, line 21, supply after ‘womb’, ‘I remember indeed the period I remained in her womb’; p. 37, line 5, perhaps ‘so’ (Ir. co) might be replaced by ‘to the extent’; p. 51, line 13, supply ‘in animals’ after ‘when’; p. 52, lines 23-4, to capture the parallelism of the Latin, read ‘while to the sinners who were devoured they rendered the fierceness etc.’; p. 70, line 21, supply ‘famous’ before ‘teacher’; line 26, replace ‘what’ with ‘how’; line 27, replace ‘us’ with ‘our needs’; line 29, supply ‘reasons for the’ before ‘changes’; line 31, replace ‘behold’ with ‘study’ and ‘flowing sea’ with ‘incoming tide’; line 32, replace ‘the place to which it ebbs’ with ‘its ebbing’; p. 85, line 6, supply ‘of everyone’ after ‘intellect’; line 15, replace ‘weakness and slumber’ with ‘waning and hiberna- tion’. LÉIRMHEAS 253 Elegantly written and beautifully printed, this book is a welcome addition to the field of early Irish studies.

PÁDRAIG P. Ó NÉILL University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

The Celtic monk: rules and writings of early Irish monks. Uinseann Ó Maidín. Cistercian Studies Series no. 162. Kalamazoo, Michigan; Spencer, Massachussetts. 1996. 216 pp.

ONE of the most neglected fields of Old Irish studies are the ‘rules’ and related monastic writings, many of them attributed to or associ- ated with the great monastic founders of the early Irish church. Although these attributions are almost all spurious, the works them- selves have the potential to shed light on early Irish monasticism both in its material and spiritual aspects. Composed mainly in the ninth and tenth centuries, the texts have been preserved in manuscripts of the fourteenth to the seventeenth centuries, with all the linguistic dif- ficulties attending such late transmission. In addition they are replete with technical terms, many of which have defied definition. Small wonder then that the few scholars who have worked on them were philologists, notably Strachan, Meyer, Bergin and Gwynn, whose concern was to provide accurate editions for the benefit of ecclesias- tical historians. Unfortunately, the benefits they hoped for have not been realized, the only serious effort at addressing these documents being Dom Louis Gougaud’s ‘Inventaire des règles monastiques irlandaises’ (Revue Bénédictine 25 (1908) 167-84, 321-33). Thus a book which proposes to provide for ‘as wide a reading public as possible’ these ‘early Irish monastic documents’, in English translation, is timely in its appearance and laudable in its intent. Certainly the translator has done a service by bringing together for the first time this group of documents from a variety of sources, many of them inaccessible to the general public. But when he goes on to say that his translations ‘are not intended as an exer- cise in linguistics, though every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the translation’ (p. 13), this reviewer is startled not so much at the implied rebuke of philologists in the main clause as the relegation of accuracy to a qualified position in the subordinate clause. That said, the translator has managed to capture the spirit of these texts, if not always their precise meaning. Perhaps his achieve- 254 LÉIRMHEAS ment is as much as one can hope for in the present incomplete state of knowledge, and given the audience which he has in mind. But those who have a scholarly interest in these texts will have to con- tinue relying on the translations of his philological predecessors. The one exception is his translation of the so-called ‘Rule of Tallaght’, which captures the almost conversational style of the original better than Gwynn’s rather stiff translation. Also original to the present book is an attempted translation of two ‘rules’ which Strachan had edited but declined to translate, ‘The Rule of Ciarán’ and ‘The Rule of the Grey Monks’ (Ériu 2 (1905), 227-9). I believe Strachan made the right decision. A curious feature of the book is that where a work is preserved in several manuscripts the translator does not identify the specific one(s) that formed the basis of his translation. This problem is espe- cially noticeable in ‘The Rule of Tallaght’ where one has the impres- sion (perhaps unjustified) that the translator is using two other discrete texts that share parts with the Tallaght Rule. Nor does he always inform readers about previous editions and translations, as with ‘The Rule of Colmcille’ (see A. W. Haddan and William Stubbs, Councils and ecclesiastical documents relating to Great Britain and Ireland II (Oxford 1873) 119); ‘The Rule of Cormac mac Ciolionáin [sic] (see John Strachan, Ériu 2 (1905) 62-8); ‘An incomplete frag- ment’ (see Mac Eclaise, Irish Ecclesiastical Record 4th ser. 28 (1910) 474-9 and 29 (1911) 289-93); ‘The Rule of the Céli Dé’ and ‘The Rule of Tallaght’ (for both see Edward Gwynn, Hermathena 44, 2nd suppl. Ser. (1927) 64-87 and 1-63 respectively). The book is divided into two parts, the first comprising transla- tions of monastic ‘rules’, the second translations of related docu- ments, classified as ‘writings, litanies and hymns’. Given that the author seems to aim at completeness in the first part, he should have made some mention of ’s Regula monachorum, the only proper monastic rule that has survived from Ireland. Written in Latin and composed on the continent, it may well reflect the usages of Bangor, the monastery where Columbanus spent the earlier part of his life. Given the miscellaneous character of the second part, the translator was bound to be selective, and he has chosen well. For variety’s sake he might have included some excerpts from the Irish Penitentials relating to the monastic life (especially its human weak- nesses) and a few sections from Adomnán’s Life of Columba, which contains the most complete picture that we have of Irish monastic life in the seventh century. LÉIRMHEAS 255 The book also contains a selection of early Irish spiritual poems (omitted from the table of contents), translated by Flower and oth- ers, as well as an appendix of Latin hymns and a highly selective (and quirky) bibliography. What would have helped both the trans- lator and the reader is a glossary of Irish monastic terms such as anmchara ‘soul-friend, personal confessor’, anteirt (a special Office hour celebrated around sunrise), deórad (translated ‘penitent’ but more likely ‘pilgrim’), recht (translated ‘scriptures’, perhaps ‘the Old Testament’), stair (translated ‘history’ but probably ‘the histori- cal interpretation of scripture’), sruithi (the seniores of the monastery). Some egregious errors call for comment: ‘many brothers’ (52), but the corresponding Irish, uathad, suggests a single, small group; the phrase ‘Eating in the afternoon’ (56 n. 10) makes no sense unless one explains that it refers to the first meal of the day; ‘Sharing of alms’ (78 n. 43) is conjectural, the reading menci in the other manuscript (TCD 1336) indicates that ‘frequency of almsgiving’ is intended; the translation ‘eight selann’ (83) is based on reading ocht but the manu- script has nocht, read ‘night selann’ with Gwynn; ‘I asked Maelruain’ (105, l. 2), recte ‘I did not ask Maelruain’; the opening six lines (139) are not part of the Cambrai Homily; in the table of illustrations (216) transpose the caption for p. 16 with that for p. 50, replace ‘Irish’ (three times) with ‘Inis’ and ‘Abenny’ with ‘Ahenny’.

PÁDRAIG P. Ó NÉILL University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Béarrach mná ag caint. Tadhg Ó Murchú a bhailigh. Máirtín Verling a chuir in eagar agus a chóirigh. Cló Iar-Chonnachta Teo. 1999.

Seanchas a bhailigh Tadhg Ó Murchú (1896-1961) ó Mháiréad Ní Mhionacháin (1861-1957) i bparóiste Chill Chaitiairn ar leithinis Bhéarra idir na blianta 1950 agus 1952 is abhar don saothar seo. Is mór í ar bhfáilte roimis, mar gur beag leabhar ar bhéaloideas Bhéarra a foilsíodh go dtí seo, bíodh is go bhfuil timpeall le seacht míle leathanach d’abhar ón leithinis ar buanchoimeád i gCartlann Roinn Bhéaloideas Éireann, sa Choláiste Ollscoile, Baile Átha Cliath. Is é Pádraig Ó Laoghaire (ós na hInsí i mBéarra) is túisce a chuir scéalta béaloidis ó Bhéarra i gcló i Sgéaluidheacht Chúige Mumhan (1895): bailíodh cúig cinn as na seacht scéalta sa chnósach san i 256 LÉIRMHEAS bparóiste Chill Chaitiairn. Níor tháinig aon leabhar eile ar bhéaloideas na leithinse ar an bhfód go dtí gur fhoilsigh Máirtín Verling Gort Broc – scéalta agus seanchas ó Bhéarra bailithe ó Phádraig Ó Murchú (1996). Sa tsaothar is déanaí, Béarrach mná ag caint, ní hamháin go dtugann Verling caoi dhúinn ar bhreis seanchais ón gceantar a thabhairt linn, ach tugann an leabhar taitneamhach seo léargas fé leith dhúinn ‘ar bhansheanchas Bhéarra’ (10) chomh maith. Tráchtann an t-údar mar chuid den réamhrá ar bhunstruchtúirí a chuaigh i gcoinnibh na mban mar fhaisnéiseoirí agus mar bhaili- theoirí (‘Scéaltóirí ban sa bhéaloideas’ 12-19). Ba dheacair teacht ar eolas fé mhná mar sheanchaithe nó mar scéalaithe, mar shampla, toisc ná raibh bailitheoirí mná fostaithe go lánaimseartha ag Coimisiún Béaloideasa Éireann. Dá dtacófaí le banbhailitheoirí, an- sheans ‘go bhfaighfí ábhar luachmhar nua in aon bhailiúchán a dhéanfaí i “limistéar príobháideach” na bhfaisnéiseoirí ban’ (14). Áitíonn Verling ar a shon san gur chuid dhílis den ‘aeráid acadúil agus shóisialta’ (15) ag an am é gan timpeallacht fhoirfe a chruthú a chuirfeadh le bailiú béaloidis ó bhean. Go deimhin, fiú má bhí bailitheoir mná fostaithe ag an gCoimisiún, níor mhór di a post a thabhairt suas a thúisce a phósfadh sí, de réir rialacha na Stát- seirbhíse ag an am (Diarmuid Ó Giolláin, Locating Irish folklore (Cork 2000) 141). Bíodh is gur bailitheoir fir a bhain Máiréad Ní Mhionacháin amach sa bhliain 1950, níor chuir sé sin cosc leis an rilleadh cainte a tháinig uaithi ar sheanchas a háite dúchais. Ba dheacair do Thadhg bocht coimeád suas le heachtraíocht Mháiréad an chéad lá agus ‘do bhí smut den leabhar nótaí breacaithe’ aige agus é ‘ina ríobal allais’ (37), sarar scar sé léi. Tá léiriú an-bhreá ina theannta san sa réamhrá ar an ndlúthchoidreamh a d’fhás idir an bailitheoir fir agus an scéaltóir mná (‘Tadhg Ó Murchú agus Máiréad Ní Mhionacháin’ 36- 43). Tá sleachta éagsúla ó nótaí Thaidhg sa leabhar anseo a thais- peáineann an meas a bhí aige don mbean sheamhrach, shoiléiseach, láidir úd. D’áitimh sé, cuirim i gcás, gurbh í ‘an bhean [ab] eolgaisí í ar na seanachúrsaí seo ’ár chasadh fós orm’ (39) – do sháraigh sí, más ea, na scéalaithe mná ab fhearr dár bhuail Tadhg Ó Murchú leo atá luaite aige i Béaloideas 18 (1948) 41-3. Fianaise bhreise ar phearsantacht Mháiréad Ní Mhionacháin is ea na cuimhní ar a seanmháthair a bhreac Nóirín Uí Éanaí (Ní Shúilleabháin) síos as Béarla don údar sa bhliain 1991 (21-34, 41-2). Bhí mianach an aithriseora i Máiréad grod ina saol, is cosúil, agus LÉIRMHEAS 257 thugadh sí taitneamh do bheith ag aithris filíocht Bhéarla a d’fhogh- laim sí ar scoil. Níor dhuine cúlánta í – ‘she liked the little bit of notice’ (29), ‘she loved having people round her and enjoyed the attention which these visits offered her’ (41). Má bhí cúramaí traid- isiúnta na mná pósta a thóg trí dhuine dhéag clainne ar Mháiréad, ní hamhlaidh a bhí sí dall ar chúrsaí an tsaoil mhóir. Tagraíonn iníon a mic don tsuim a bhí ag a seanmháthair sa pholaitíocht: ba thábh- achtach le Máiréad a ceart vótála (26). Níor chúb sí chuici féin roimis an sagart paróiste nuair a chuir sé suas d’ógánaigh an bhaill a bheith ag seinniúint ceoil – go deimhin ‘[she] told him in no uncer- tain terms that her daughter had her full approval to play music, that in fact she herself had bought the melodeon’ (31). Tá réimse leathan ag an mbéaloideas a d’aithris Máiréad Ní Mhionacháin – seanchas áitiúil, slí bheatha na ndaoine, an pobal, an duine, an nádúr, leigheasanna na ndaoine, ranna na haimsire, féilte agus turais, piseoga agus draíocht, samhlaíocht i dtaobh nithe agus daoine, litríocht agus caitheamh aimsire na ndaoine, agus seanchas stairiúil (47-157). Tá, ina theannta san, píosaí béaloidis sa leabhar seo a chuala Nóirín Uí Éanaí óna seanmháthair a chuir sí go dtí an údar sa bhliain 1992 (204-9). Cuid dhílis den bhéaloideas is ea an teanga féin, gan dabht, agus tá an t-eagarthóir le moladh as ar chuir sé roimis gan canúint Bhéarra ‘a cheilt’ (210) sa chóiriú. Ar a shon san, áfach, ní fheadar ná go múchtar tréithe áirithe den chanúint sa mhodh eagarthóireachta: má cinneadh, mar shampla, ar b’fhé’ (b’fhéidir), b’fhriste (b’fhurasta), áinní (aon ní), éigint (éigin), bhuaidh (uaidh), ’uit (duit), tiormú (tirimiú), ’en (den) a choimeád, nár chóraide anún (anonn), ca’’na chaobh (cad ina thaobh), nódh (nua), reádh (rá), cuirim i gcás, a choimeád chomh maith céanna? Tugtar gutaí nó défhoghair de réir nóis an lae inniu ach amháin sna focail baochas (buíochas), fún (fonn) agus téacht (teacht); ba dhóigh liom, áfach, go bhféadfaí bialóg (béalóg), errthi (uirthi), fiachaint (féachaint), ficeann (feiceann), geach (gach), ghoibh (ghaibh), muar (mór), naé (naoi), nú (nó), scoura (scanradh), strouinséartha (strannséartha) a chur leis na heisceachtaí sin. Tréith shuaithinseach i mBéarra (agus go deimhin i gCléire agus i gCairbre chomh maith) is ea Ð /əv/ sa tsaorbhriathar aimsir chaite, agus b’fhéidir, dá réir sin, gurbh fhearr litriú ar nós báv, casav, cuardaíov na lámhscríbhinne a choinneáil mar go gceileann an litriú caighdeánach an tréith áirithe sin sa chanúint. Ná baineadh na pointí seo, áfach, ó fhiúntas an leabh- air féin. Is mór an chomaoin atá curtha ag Tadhg Ó Murchú agus ag an 258 LÉIRMHEAS eagarthóir, Máirtín Verling, ar Bhéarra leis an saothar breá seo a chuireann go mór lena bhfuil foilsithe cheana féin ar bhéaloideas na leithinse.

MEIDHBHêN Nê ÚRDAIL Institiúid Ard-Léinn Bhaile Átha Cliath

Ireland and Scandinavia in the early Viking Age. Edited by Howard B. Clarke, Máire Ní Mhaonaigh and Raghnall Ó Floinn. Four Courts Press, Dublin, 1998. 468 pp + 64 illustrations and 9 tables.

THIS volume contains the proceedings of a conference held in Dublin in 1995, marking the 1,200th anniversary of the first recorded Viking attack on Ireland. Among the conference’s sponsors were the embassies in Ireland of Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden; and the Scandinavian countries were well represented among the dele- gates and speakers. The published version is a handsome and sub- stantial volume, generously supplied with illustrations, maps and diagrams; it is divided into two main sections headed ‘Archaeology’ and ‘History and literature’, with two concluding essays under the rubric ‘Overview’. In ‘The archaeology of the early Viking Age in Norway’ Bjørn Myhre argues that the date traditionally held to mark the beginning of the Viking Age (c. 790) was not a time of dramatic change within Scandinavia: the stimulus for overseas expansion seems likelier to have come from outside, perhaps in the form of pressure from the Carolingian empire. The article contains echoes of previous publica- tions in which Myhre has made a case for back-dating the Viking Age; in the present instance, however, he is prepared to acknowledge that ‘for the moment 790 is an acceptable date’. In a study of ‘Insular finds in Viking Age Scandinavia and the state formation of Norway’ Egon Wamers notes that ‘nearly all Insular ornaments in Norway derive from ecclesiastical contexts’, and most from the ninth century Ð an archaeological finding which tends to corroborate the picture of Viking activity afforded by historical sources. Wamers goes on to attempt to use the same body of evidence to identify Laithlind (later Lochlann), the earlier home of the Viking founders of Dublin, but concedes that no definitive answer to this question is yet attainable. Christopher D. Morris considers the role of early Vikings in LÉIRMHEAS 259 Scotland, noting evidence for an extended period of overlap of Pictish and Scandinavian populations, and the surprising absence of any population centres comparable to Dublin and York. In ‘The early Viking Age in the Irish Sea area’ James Graham-Campbell traces the reciprocal dynamics of the Viking presence in different regions (always, of course, a crucial perspective in any consideration of the Viking phenomenon): archaeological evidence supports the view that Viking settlement in Britain only began in earnest following reverses in Ireland, and there are indications that the seizure of Man may in turn have been due to defeat in the Danelaw. Raghnall Ó Floinn, in a paper with the comprehensive title ‘The archaeology of the early Viking Age in Ireland’, concentrates on Viking burials (notably those in Dublin); the distribution and character of Scandinavian items other than gold or silver; the use of silver in the Viking Age (here the author identifies at least two ‘economies’, one ‘secular’, the other ‘monastic/urban’); and the nature of the longphort. Each of the last three papers in this section focuses on a single topic: John Sheehan discusses Irish silver hoards in the early Viking Age, concluding that ‘a very considerable proportion of Ireland’s Viking Age silver wealth ended up in Irish ownership’; Elizabeth O’Brien analyses the Viking burials at Kilmainham and Islandbridge, proposing that they reflect the appropriation of a native cemetery and were attached to the long- phort at the original Áth Cliath; and Walsh, in ‘A summary classification of Viking Age swords in Ireland’, concludes that these belong mainly to the early period of Viking settlement: their rarity later may be due to various factors, changes in burial practice among them. The six contributions to the section ‘History and literature’ are evenly divided between Scandinavian and non-Scandinavian authors. In ‘The history of the early Viking Age in Norway’ Knut Helle upholds the view that economic pressures lay behind Viking expansion, and points out that some kind of aristocratic social organ- isation must be postulated in order to account for the raids them- selves. Jónas Kristjánsson looks at ‘Ireland and the Irish in Icelandic tradition’, concentrating particularly on the portrayal of Irish slaves; he concludes, abruptly and to my mind somewhat inconsequentially, by stating that he does not ‘believe in an appreciable Irish influence upon Icelandic culture at an earlier period’. Jan Erik Rekdal dis- cusses the Norwegian legend of an Irish princess Sunniva, arguing that it may have been based upon an Irish voyage tale; it may be noted, however, that although some of its details certainly recall 260 LÉIRMHEAS features of Irish peregrinatio, the Sunniva story does not in fact resemble any Irish voyage tale which has come down to us. Charles Doherty’s ‘The Vikings in Ireland: a review’ is a study dense with intriguing ideas: some of these (such as his suggestion that the focus on the pre-Christian period in much Old and Middle Irish literature may reflect ‘an agenda to woo pagan Norsemen away from their own beliefs’) seem fairly adventurous to this reviewer, while others (notably his proposal that many features of Irish settlement and social organization usually associated with the Normans may in fact have been due to the Viking presence) are argued persuasively and at length. In ‘Proto-towns and towns in Ireland and Britain in the ninth and tenth centuries’, Howard B. Clarke takes previous writers to task for their readiness to link Vikings with the rise of towns tout court: he provocatively asserts that ‘there never were any Viking towns in Ireland’, before presenting evidence in support of his own thesis that ‘the first examples of real urbanization in Ireland were more of an Hiberno-Norse achievement than a Viking one.’ Máire Ní Mhaonaigh’s ‘Friend and foe: Vikings in ninth- and tenth-century Irish literature’ supplements and builds upon Proinsias Mac Cana’s 1962 essay ‘The influence of the Vikings on Celtic literature’ in stimulating and important ways: especially interesting is her use of such continental evidence as the Vita Findani. The two pieces in the section ‘Overview’ were contributed by Bjørn Ambrosiani and Donnchadh Ó Corráin – the former writing as an archaeologist, the latter as an historian. Ambrosiani puts forward various arguments in support of Myhre’s view that ‘Viking Age cul- ture’ anticipated the Viking raids as such; he further contends that insistence on a rigid definition of ‘town’ (as opposed, for example, to ‘proto-town’) may obscure significant continuities, and that ‘proto-towns’ already existed in Scandinavia in the early to mid- eighth century. In a wide-ranging discussion Ó Corráin calls atten- tion to the overall success of Irish resistance to the Vikings; notes the enduring impact of the Osraige conquest of Leinster on Icelandic tra- dition; and proposes that the account of the battle of Clontarf in Njáls saga was based on a Norse text written in Dublin. This is a rich, learned and engrossing book, providing both pene- trating surveys and a wealth of valuable detail; the sketchy remarks above should not be viewed as an adequate summary of the volume’s contents, but merely as some indication of their scope. The editors (and the organisers of the 1995 conference) are to be congratulated on bringing together a collection of papers which mark a significant LÉIRMHEAS 261 step forward for all of the many disciplines involved in Viking studies.

JOHN CAREY University College Cork

Celts and Vikings. Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium of Societas Celtologica Nordica. Edited by Folke Josephson. Utgivet av Styrelsen för Meijerbergs Institut vid Göteborgs Universitet, 20. Göteborg 1997. 292 pp.

THIS volume represents the publication of the proceedings of the above-mentioned symposium held at Göteborg University on November 6-7, 1992. Two of the papers, those by Edmund Gussman and Liam Mac Mathúna, are based on lectures given at the Department of Comparative Philology, as neither of these contribu- tors was able to attend the symposium (cf. p. 1). The delay in the publication of the proceedings is regretted in the Foreword (2). The volume is divided into four main sections: Part I – Medieval litera- ture and history (9-65); Part II – Linguistics and poetics (69-149); Part III – Oral and literary tradition (153-208); Part IV – Voyages and legends (211-92). As the section-titles indicate the volume cov- ers an extensive range of topics. One wholeheartedly welcomes vol- umes of this nature and this particular publication contains many interesting articles. It is regrettable, however, as will be seen below, that editorial standards in the volume leave much to be desired. Gearóid Mac Eoin’s contribution to the volume is ‘Satire in Middle Irish literature’ (9-25). He begins his paper with some general obser- vations on the nature of early Irish literature (9-11). One of the opin- ions expressed here is that early Irish law was couched in obscure verse and preserved orally until the early seventh century, and was then revised by clerics and set down in prose form (10). Surprisingly, there is no reference in this contribution to publications in which cogent evidence radically undermining such a view has been adduced as, for example, Liam Breatnach, ‘Canon law and secular law in early Ireland: the significance of Bretha Nemed’ Peritia 3 (1984) 439-59. Mac Eoin then briefly discusses a number of Middle Irish tales, among which are Aislinge Meic Conglinne, Imthechta na nÓinmhideadh, Echtra Ríg Tuaithe Luchra 7 Lupracán, Compert Mongáin 7 Serc Duibe Lacha do Mongán and Tromdám Guaire. Concerning the 262 LÉIRMHEAS function of such texts he states (14) that in the eleventh and twelfth centuries kings, ecclesiastics and poets were satirised repeatedly in prose narratives constituting ‘about 20-40 pages of print’, which pur- port to relate events which took place in the sixth, seventh or eighth century, and that these narratives offer a thinly-veiled criticism of con- ditions at the time they were composed. The relevance here of ‘about 20-40 pages of print’, however, is not entirely clear. As is the case with many other contributions, mis-spellings and faulty punctuation abound in this contribution: ‘pre-christlan’, ‘Tochchmarc Étaíne’, ‘lovestories’ (all on p. 10), to name but a few. Jan Erik Rekdal’s contribution, ‘The implications of “orality-liter- acy” for the understanding of the sixteenth-century Life of Colum Cille’ (199-208) would have benefited greatly from much-needed revision for a number of reasons, among which is the poor standard of English. Given its subject matter it is quite remarkable that this article contains no reference to A. O’Kelleher and G. Schoepperle, Betha Colaim Chille (Illinois 1918; repr. Dublin 1994), in spite of the fact that Rekdal refers on several occasions to page, line and sec- tion numbers of this work. There are also many self-assured com- ments on literacy and orality, which are not only unsubstantiated but are also somewhat simplistic. Another source of irritation is the author’s frequent use of sic and/or the exclamation mark, e.g. ‘the sixteenth-century Life … was intended for a much wider audience (sic!)’ (200). The following sentence illustrates Rekdal’s unsubstan- tiated views and the poor standard of English in his contribution: ‘To sum up I find that the Life refers and accords to two narrative tradi- tions that had not for a long time been kept apart, as if they still were so. This it does by narratively relating of a time in which there existed two separate traditions – the indigenous one (of the filid) and a imported recent one (of the monastics)’ (207). Máire Herbert, ‘The death of Mac (sic) Erca: a twelfth-century tale’ (27-39) points out that while ostensibly recall- ing persons and events of a distant past the twelfth-century author may have been concerned with a more immediate subject (32). She also observes that early Irish stories of legendary rulers depict either positive or negative exempla of good rulership (27). In addition to using the tale of a king of long ago to illustrate general principles about contemporary kingship, it is argued that the narrative of the death of Muirchertach mac Erca was designed to comment on the downfall and death of the king’s later kinsman and namesake, Muirchertach Mac Lochlainn. LÉIRMHEAS 263 Liam Mac Mathúna’s contribution to the volume is ‘The Vikings in Ireland: contemporary reaction and cultural legacy’ (41-65), a paper which ‘seeks to look afresh at the historic and linguistic evi- dence for the Norse connection at Dublin and throughout Ireland, especially during the formative years 795-850’ (41). Among the top- ics discussed are ‘Incursions, designations and ambiguities’ (42-7); ‘Settlement’ (48-54); ‘Marriage and cultural alliances’ (54-7); ‘Lexical borrowing’ (57-8) and ‘Norse influence on place-names’ (58-60). Much of this interesting contribution is based on a rigorous analysis of the Annals of Ulster from 794-950. Among the contributions in Part II is an article by Ailbhe Ó Corráin entitled ‘Spatial perception and the development of grammatical structures in Irish’ (89-101). Ó Corráin discusses the importance of spatial perception in human cognition and how ‘this is manifested linguistically in what may be referred to as concrete location, abstract location and temporal location’ (100). Some of the refer- ences in this contribution are imprecise, e.g. ‘LU Táin atá árchú lemsa LL Táin árchú fil ocum’ (92). Under the heading ‘attá Y oc X = X has the power to do Y’, Ó Corráin cites (97) the following: ‘ní bhia … ag boigs˙ín / mo chor tar creich Pháidrigín (Eriu ix 163 & 7)’. The reader is simply informed that this is one of the examples of the construction ‘subst. vb. + oc’ to be found in DIL. What DIL s.v. attá, A, col. 472, ll. 68-9, has in fact is: ‘ní bhía ... ag boigs˙ín mo chor tar creich Phádraigín, Ériu ix 163 §7’. Séamas Ó Catháin, ‘Brigit and the seven bears: some Nordic-Celtic parallels’ (253-92) discusses the various Irish names for bears and tra- ditions associated with the bear in Nordic-Celtic tradition. Ó Catháin also discusses (264-9) some interesting possible links between Nordic bear-lore and Hebridean Gaelic tradition concerning St Brigid. The remaining contributions to the volume are: Ruairí Ó hUiginn, ‘Aspects of clause subordination in the ’ (69-87); Edmund Gussman, ‘Putting your best foot forward: stress in ’ (103-33); Glyn Welden Banks, ‘Cynghanedd “Sain” in the poetry of Gerard Manley Hopkins’ (135-49); Mícheál Briody, ‘Mícheál Ó Gaoithín – storyteller’ (153-85); Ole Munch-Pedersen, ‘Holger Pedersen’s Aran notebooks as a source for dialect studies’ (187-98); Séamus Mac Mathúna, ‘Hvítramannaland’ (211-24).

CAOIMHÍN BREATNACH An Coláiste Ollscoile, Baile Átha Cliath 264 LÉIRMHEAS Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie. Unter Mitwirkung von Patrizia de Bernardo Stempel, Rolf Ködderitzsch und Herbert Pilch. Herausgegeben von Karl Horst Schmidt. Band 48. 1996. Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen. 388 pp.

MUCH of this volume is taken up by a lengthy article by P. Le Besco entitled ‘Le Breton de Belle-Ile-En-Mer, 2° partie’ (pp 89-258) in which a survey of the Breton of this area is continued from ZCP 45 (1992) 182-239. In an article entitled ‘Some aspects of the salmon in Gaelic tra- dition past and present’ (17-28) Art Hughes comments on various usages of terms for salmon in Irish tradition. He then goes on to discuss identification of salmon in the Vita Tripartita, of St Patrick and elsewhere. That salmon can be distinguished by river is deemed by Hughes to be of particular importance in a passage dis- cussed by him from the Vita Tripartita in which it is stated that salmon on the River Drowes in south Co. Donegal are peculiar to that river because of Patrick’s blessing (23). Hughes also takes into consideration traditions associated with salmon from more recent times. In spite of scepticism met with from ichthyologists Hughes is in favour of the opinion that fishermen can distinguish salmon by river. The ‘oral traditions’ of some fishermen, according to Hughes, may be ‘interpreted as quasiscientific findings based on quite sound, not to mention sustained, periods of “observation’’’ (24). One wonders what exactly is meant by ‘quasiscientific’ in this par- ticular context. Nevertheless, the issue raised is an interesting one. This article would have benefited from some more careful proof- reading as the following examples indicate: ‘… on the use of the- ses epithets’ (17); ‘… Mughain inghen meic Dhuach, the mother Aedh Sláine …’ (17, n. 2); ‘Eochaidh Ó hEodhusa’s describes’ (18); ‘as in the Eochaidh Ó hEodhasa’s Teallach einigh iath Laighean’ (21). Herbert Pilch’s contribution is entitled ‘Word formation in Welsh and Breton: a comparative study’ (34-88). Among matters discussed are affixal derivation and compounding. While the author is clearly concerned in the main with Welsh and Breton, he occasionally cites examples from Irish with English translations (erroneously for the most part). We find ‘an-t éadach-mná [sic] “women’s clothing’’’ (75); ‘ag freagairt na gceisteanna, “answer the questions”’ (76); ‘bíonn tosaíocht aige orm “he was here before me”’ (84); ‘cur [sic] an teas air, “switch on the electricity”’ (84). LÉIRMHEAS 265 Kenneth Shields Jr., ‘Old Irish lín “Numerus”’: another Indo- European/Near Eastern connection?’ (287-9) seeks, in the case of the word lín, ‘to provide another explanation of the semantic shift of “full” to “numerus” based on external, not internal, forces of change’ (287). This he does by recourse to a certain degree of speculation. Ancient Indo-Europeans, according to the author, could have observed the practice of record keeping when interacting with cer- tain Near Eastern groups. Old Irish lín, therefore, may constitute an archaic usage going back to the time when these ancient Indo- Europeans made a semantic connection between a token (‘a num- ber’) and the concept of ‘filling’ since the ‘numbers’ literally ‘filled’ hollow clay containers called bullae (288-9). Other articles in this volume are Joaquin Gorrochategui, ‘Miscellanea Iberica’ (1-16); Andrew Breeze, ‘Ieuan ap Rhydderch and Welsh rhagman “game of chance”’ (29-33); Garland Cannon and Caryl Davies, ‘Sir William Jones (1746-94) and Lewis Morris’ Celtic Remains’ (291-5). The volume also contains an obituary of the late Professor Maartje Draak (1907-95) and reviews and notices.

CAOIMHÍN BREATNACH

Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie, Band 49-50, Jubiläumsdoppelband zum 100jährigen Bestehen der Zeitschrift, 1997. Hrsg. von Karl Horst Schmidt unter Mitwirkung von Patrizia de Bernardo Stempel, Rolf Ködderitsch, und Herbert Pilch. xi + 1067 pp.

THE FIRST volume of Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie appeared in 1897. Its list of contributors is a dazzling one when viewed at this remove, with such names included as H. Gaidoz, W. M. Lindsay, J. Loth, W. Meyer-Lübke, J. Rhyˆs, F. Sommer, W. Stokes, J. Strachan, R. Thurneysen, John Strachan, E. Zuspitza, H. Zimmer, K. Meyer, L. C. Stern. The contents encompass the philology of all the Celtic lan- guages – grammar, etymology, phonology, literary history, manu- script studies and folklore. The centenary of the publication of that first volume and the jubilee of the journal’s foundation is marked by the present double issue. A foreword from the Editor recalls the illus- trious history of the Zeitschrift as an international forum for study of the Celtic languages and its important role in gaining an international profile for the discipline (pp v-viii). The volume includes in all some seventy or so contributions, 266 LÉIRMHEAS arranged by author in order of the alphabet, and occupying a little over a thousand pages. The range of topics is even more diverse than in the volume published in 1897, with the linguistic boundaries widened to include a proportion of contributions dealing with Proto- Celtic and Indo-European studies. The ‘cultural’ remit is also extended, too indulgently perhaps, to accommodate a small handful of articles whose connections with philology are only of the vaguest kind. One hesitates perhaps in assigning to that category a contribu- tion signed by the members of the editorial team and others, with which the volume ends, entitled ‘Philologie und ihre Instrumental- isierung’ (1055-67). This has for its subject-matter the views con- cerning the politicisation of Celtic studies in Germany in the Nazi period which were expressed by a journalist (R. Luyken) writing in the influential German weekly Die Zeit in 1996 under the title ‘Keltisch als Geheimwaffe’. A strong rebuttal of inaccuracies, gen- eralisations and other misconceptions in Luyken’s article, is timely, even if there will be some reservations as to whether the Zeitschrift is the appropriate place in which to issue it. Readers of ÉIGSE will find much to interest them in the large vari- ety of linguistic, grammatical, text-philological, literary-historical, and lexicographical contributions. Among several substantial articles on topics of Irish and Welsh linguistics are the following: Uáitéar Mac Gearailt, ‘Infixed and independent pronouns in the LL text of Táin Bó Cúailnge’ (494-515); Máire Ní Mhaonaigh, ‘Some Middle Irish declensional patterns in Cogad Gáedel re Gallaib’ (615-28); Ailbhe Ó Corráin, ‘On the syntax and semantics of expressions of being in Early Irish’ (629-42); D. S. Evans ‘The comparative adjec- tive in Middle Welsh’ (179-97); Arndt Wigger, ‘Aspekte der Redewiedergabe im gesprochenen Irischen’ (965-99). Comparative syntax is represented by the contributions of Proinsias Mac Cana, ‘Ir. ba marb, W. bu farw “he died”’(469-81), and Herbert Pilch and Markus Wursthorn, ‘Vergleichende Syntax der keltischen is- Konstruktionen’ (725-36). Aspects of Irish, Scottish Gaelic and Welsh lexicography and word-field studies, are the subject of contri- butions by William Gillies, ‘Forms and meanings of Scottish Gaelic leugh, “read”’ (243-49); Liam Mac Mathúna, ‘The christianisation of the early Irish cosmos?: muir mas, nem nglas, talam cé (Blathm. 258)’ (532-47); J. E. Caerwyn Williams, ‘Welsh iawn’ (1000-12). Complementary etymological and cultural aspects of the history of Ir. briugu are covered in articles by Patrizia de Bernardo Stempel, ‘Spuren gemeinkeltischer Kultur im Wortschatz’ (92-106), and LÉIRMHEAS 267 Gearóid Mac Eoin, ‘The briugu in early Irish society’ (482-93). Several articles offering close analysis of texts and themes from dif- ferent eras of Irish tradition are included, among them J. Falaky Nagy, ‘How the Táin was lost’ (603-9); Máire West, ‘Aspects of díberg in the tale Togail Bruidne Da Derga’ (950-964); Máire Herbert, ‘Caithréim Cellaig: some literary and historical considera- tions’ (320-32); Pádraig A. Breatnach, ‘The poet’s graveside vigil: a theme of Irish bardic elegy in the fifteenth century’ (50-63). Unlike the first volume of the journal, which has quite a number of notable editions of mainly Old, Middle and Modern Irish texts, editions of texts occupy only a small proportion of the pages in the current issue. These include two outstanding contributions. The first is an edition of a difficult short text, first printed accompanied by a partial translation by Kuno Meyer in vol. 1, and here presented com- plete with full translation and commentary by Johan Corthals, ‘Die Trennung von Finn und Gráinne’ (71-92). The second is the edition with commentary of Y twrch o’r graig mewn torch gron by R. Geraint Gruffydd, ‘An englynion by Dafydd ap Gwilym?’ (273-81). Sadly, the high standard of accuracy and learning that marks these editions is conspicuously absent in one or two other contributions to the volume containing editions of medieval Irish verse texts which are marred by errors too numerous to mention. Readers will doubtless find much else of interest in this double issue, which it is not possible to document in a brief notice. We can- not fail to mention in marking its publication, however, that Irish scholars in particular have reason to cherish ZCP and to celebrate the dedication and achievement of successive editorial teams under whom it has flourished so successfully. This is because throughout the hundred years of its life as a journal, and in no small measure by virtue of its existence, Celtic philology has remained a recognized and respected field of study in Germany. Consequently, successive generations of young scholars of the Celtic languages from Ireland, many of them availing of the Travelling Studentship scheme of the National University of Ireland, have found a sympathetic environ- ment in Germany in which to pursue further training and widen their horizons. Accordingly, the debt owing to the Zeitschrift from Ireland is not merely borne by scholars of Celtic Studies, but by the Irish university system as a whole.

PÁDRAIG A. BREATNACH 268 LÉIRMHEAS Text and gloss: studies in Insular learning and literature presented to Joseph Donovan Pheifer. Helen Conrad-O’Briain, Anne Marie D’Arcy and John Scattergood. Four Courts Press, Dublin, 1999. 214 pp.

THIS volume, which honours a scholar best known for his work on Old English glossaries, contains three essays directly or indirectly related to Early Irish and Hiberno-Latin studies, by prominent schol- ars in that field. Thomas O’Loughlin, ‘The list of illustrious writers in the Pseudo-Bedan Collectanea’ (pp 35-48), examines the sources of just one part of the Collectanea, an anonymous work sometimes attributed to Ireland. He concludes that it could have been written in the seventh or eighth century, although he admits that it contains nothing to link it specifically to Ireland – or indeed anywhere else. Michael W. Herren writes about ‘Literary and glossarial evidence for the study of classical mythology in Ireland A.D. 600-800’ (49-67), a topic often mentioned but rarely discussed. Bringing together his own work and that of others. Herren offers a valuable overview of the topic, including some comments on ‘O’Mulconry’s Glossary’. Helen Conrad-O’Briain, ‘The Harrowing of Hell in the Canterbury glosses and its context in Augustinian ’ (73-88), although mainly concerned with Augustinian and Insular doctrine, discusses some Hiberno-Latin commentaries in its final five pages.

PÁDRAIG P. Ó NÉILL University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Illustrated Gaelic-English dictionary. Edward Dwelly. Introduction by Peter Berresford Ellis. Birlinn, Edinburgh 2001. xxxviii + 1038 pp.

The essential Gaelic-English dictionary: a dictionary for students and learners of Scottish Gaelic. Compiled by Angus Watson. Birlinn, Edinburgh, 2001. 415 pp.

EDWARD DWELLY’S monumental dictionary first appeared in instal- ments between the years 1901 and 1911. It was reprinted in l920, 1930, 1941, 1949, 1967, 1971, 1973 and 1977. This present photo- graphic reprint is twenty per cent larger than earlier editions, and the typeface is therefore much easier on the eyes. LÉIRMHEAS 269 Dwelly’s dictionary is unique among of Scottish Gaelic for its comprehensive treatment of the Gaelic lexicon. As a result, the dictionary has been the constant companion of generations of Gaelic speakers and learners. The work is more an encyclopaedia than a dic- tionary, since scattered throughout the text are countless labelled drawings of birds, insects, flowers, heraldic devices, agricultural tools and musical instruments. Many entries are given exhaustive treatment. Under closach ‘carcass’, for example, Dwelly gives diagrams with a Gaelic key of the separate ways a beef is divided in England and Scotland, to say nothing of the diagram of the carcass of a sheep. The entry s.v. bàta ‘boat’ is four pages in length and consists of an illustra- tion with key of a sailing boat and of diagrams and names for the var- ious parts of the rigging and equipment of the vessel. Under cuidheal shnìomha the dictionary has an entry of three columns which illus- trates and gives the names of the parts of the spinning-wheel. Under ridir ‘knight’ Dwelly gives a list of the Gaelic names for members of various orders of chivalry. These range from Ridir a’ Chluarain ‘Knight of the Thistle’ to Ridir Iolar nam Beann ‘Knight of the Mountain Eagle’ – an order that was to be introduced by the Jacobites if the Old Pretender had become king after the l745 rebellion. Under lus ‘plant’ the dictionary gives over fifty line illustrations of assorted native plants together with their Gaelic, English and Latin names. So comprehensive is Dwelly’s treatment of this aspect of Gaelic terminology that his dictionary has been widely used in Ireland for years as a source of botanical names. Among the names of plants derived from Dwelly and now in general use in Irish, one might mention beallaí francach, Dwelly’s bealaidh Frangach ‘laburnum’ (Laburnum anagyroides), literally ‘French balai, French broom’ and plúr an phrionsa, Dwelly’s Flùr-a’-Phrionnsa ‘sea bindweed’ (Calystegia soldanella). Dwelly says of flùr-a’- Phrionnsa that it was ‘originally sown by Prince Charles in 1745 when he landed in Eriskay, and [is] still growing in that island.’ Dwelly’s comprehensive approach to vocabulary on occasion trips him up. Under siteag the compiler cites two different meanings: (1) dunghill and (2) nice young female. It would seem that here Dwelly has conflated two separate words, both of apparently English origin. The first is based on English shit, the second on English chit. Given the proven worth of Dwelly’s dictionary, this, the first reprint of the new century, is welcome. The reprint itself is preceded by a memoir of the compiler under the title ‘The Wordsmith – Edward Dwelly’. Ellis’s chief source for Dwelly’s life was Flora, the 270 LÉIRMHEAS compiler’s daughter and his authoritative and most valuable account disposes of a number of legends that have grown up about the com- piler. Remarkably, Edward Dwelly was an Englishman, whose fam- ily had no Scottish connections whatever. Though of West Country stock, Dwelly was born in Twickenham, Middlesex, in 1864. He was educated in local schools and went to King’s College in the Strand to study engineering. He soon abandoned engineering to join his father, who was working for Cox’s Bank in Charing Cross. Dwelly’s family had a strong military tradition and in 1881 at the age of seventeen Dwelly joined the reserves of the Queen’s Westminster Rifle Volunteers as a part-time soldier. Shortly thereafter he transferred to the London Scottish Rifle Volunteers and became a piper. Thus began Dwelly’s lifelong connection with Scotland and Scottish culture. He became an active member of the Gaelic Society of London and began to learn Gaelic. In 1891 he moved to the Highlands, where he adopted the name Ewen MacDonald. By now he was an accomplished Gaelic speaker and a virtuoso on the bagpipes. He had already started to col- lect pipe music in manuscript and his large collection of musical man- uscripts is believed to be in private hands in Canada. Dwelly claimed in the second edition of his dictionary, published in 1920, that he began to compile the work on the very day he left London for Scotland in 1891. In 1896 he married Mary MacDougall, a native speaker of Gaelic from Ardchatten, Argyllshire, Dwelly describing himself on the wedding certificate as a landowner. Edward and Mary bought a house in Gartmore, Perthshire, where his daughter was born, and in 1897 moved to another in Lentran, over- looking Beauly Firth. In 1899 Dwelly decided to return to England to be near his elderly and widowed mother. He took a house first in Lyminge, Kent, where his two sons were born, and later in Herne Bay. Although his mother died soon thereafter, Dwelly stayed in Herne Bay, making a living by setting up his own printing and pub- lishing company under the title E. MacDonald & Company, The Gaelic Press. Dwelly was resident in England from 1899 until his death in 1939. It was during the years 1901-11 that Dwelly compiled and printed his dictionary in fascicule himself. In 1911 he republished the com- plete work in three volumes. The illustrations were done mostly by Malcolm MacDonald. Born in Stornoway in 1880, MacDonald stud- ied at the Glasgow School of Fine Arts and later at the École des Beaux Arts in Paris. The publication of the dictionary was a great strain on Dwelly’s finances. The compiler stated in the 1920 edition LÉIRMHEAS 271 that King Edward VII had awarded him a Civil List pension of £50 per annum. Dwelly’s memory seems to have failed him here, since the records show that the pension was not actually paid until 1912, two years into the reign of King George V. Dwelly received consid- erable recognition, though little financial reward, during his lifetime. He was made honorary life member of the Gaelic Society of London and An Comunn Gàidhealach. In the later years of his Life Dwelly devoted much time to genealogy and published important works on the subject. He was made a Fellow of the Society of Genealogists, an Honorary Life Member of the American Institute of Genealogy and of the Society of Australian Genealogists. In 1974 Gairm Publications, Glasgow, issued a little book of great relevance to the present dictionary: English-Gaelic Key to Dwelly’s Gaelic-English Dictionary by Girvan McKay (22 pp). In his preface McKay makes the following claim:

This small Key will, we believe, be found to be one of the most useful tools for the Gaelic scholar and writer to appear since Dwelly’s monumental Illustrated Gaelic-English Dictionary. No apology is made for putting forward such a bold claim for this very small and unpretentious looking handbook. Its few pages are the distillation of several years of perusal and use of that Dictionary. Some time ago it occurred to the compiler that the value of Dwelly’s book would be greatly enhanced at small cost in money and effort, if some sort of extended English- Gaelic index could be provided.

What McKay says is true. His unpretentious English-Gaelic index is indeed of great help to those using Dwelly’s dictionary. No student of Scottish Gaelic, who uses Dwelly, can afford to be without McKay’s Key. At the beginning of the alphabetical Gaelic-English entries in his completed dictionary Dwelly himself writes: Mur faigh thu am facal a tha thu ag iarraidh ‘na àite fèin a rèir ordugh na h-aibidil, seall air a shon ’sa Leasachadh. ‘If you cannot find the word you want in the body of the work, look for it in the Appendix.’ Although Dwelly was compiling it while publishing the dictionary proper, the Appendix was not published during his lifetime. Dwelly’s manuscript of the Appendix, a 500 page list of additional words, was deposited after his death in the National Library of Scotland as MS 14957. A shorter manuscript (MS 14958), also in Dwelly’s 272 LÉIRMHEAS handwriting, was deposited at the same time. It was not until the 1980s that Douglas Clyne, having located these two manuscripts, began to prepare an edition from photostats. When Clyne died in July 1989, Professor undertook to see the work through the press. It was published in 1991 by Gairm Publications under the title Appendix to Dwelly’s Gaelic-English Dictionary. The Appendix contains two parts: the first an alphabetical list of Gaelic words with English meanings (pp 1-107) and a shorter ‘Index (Chiefly of English words)’ (pp 103-3). My own experience has taught me just how useful is this Appendix and its English index. Girvan McKay’s Key to Dwelly’s Dictionary and Clyne and Thomson’s Appendix add enormously to the value of Dwelly’s dic- tionary. Ellis was well aware of both works when he published the present reprint, since he mentions them both in his prefaced mem- oir of Edward Dwelly. Yet by not publishing the two together with their reprint of Dwelly’s dictionary, Ellis and Birlinn, his publish- ers, have missed a splendid double opportunity. McKay’s Key would have made ideal front-matter, and the Appendix could have been printed at the end of the dictionary, just as Dwelly himself had originally intended. I sincerely hope that when Dwelly’s dictionary is next reprinted, McKay and Clyne/Thomson will be printed together with it. This would give students of Scottish Gaelic Dwelly’s dictionary in full and the associated Key in one volume for the first time. Angus Watson’s Essential Gaelic-English Dictionary (2001) is much more limited in scope than Dwelly’s encyclopaedic work. Yet, like Dwelly, Watson is a learner of Gaelic rather than a native speaker, and he tells us he has had the Gaelic learner in mind throughout. A notable feature at the end of the work is the table of commonly used forms of Gaelic irregular verbs together with their English equivalents. This will be of great use to learners as they struggle to acquaint themselves with the elements of Gaelic acci- dence and syntax. The body of the dictionary is clearly and pleasantly set out in lar- gish print with only one column per page. The dictionary contains a wealth of incidental material that is likely to be of use to learners and other students of the language. Under bratach ‘flag’, for example, Watson cites a’ Bh [r]atach Shìth ‘the Fairy Flag’ (of Dunvegan) and the first line of the song Mhic Iarla nam bratach bàna ‘O Son of the Earl of the white banners’. Under a-riamh he quotes the lines of Somhairle MacGill-Eain ’s tha mo ghaol aig Allt Hallaig … ’s bha i LÉIRMHEAS 273 riamh ‘and my love is at the Burn of Hallaig … and she has always been.’Watson’s entry under taigh ‘house’ lists various kinds of house past and present, for example taigh dubh ‘after black house – a trad[itional] type of low-walled, thatched, round-ended Highland dwelling now virtually disappeared, also an illicit distillery; Taigh nan Cumantan/nam Morairean ‘the House of Commons/of Lords’, taigh-beag ‘a toilet’ (public or private), taigh-bìdh ‘a cafe, a restau- rant’, taigh-chon ‘a kennel, taigh-cluiche ‘a theatre’, taigh-dhealbh ‘a cinema’, taigh-nighe ‘a wash-house, a laundry’, taigh-òsta ‘a hotel, an inn, a public house’, taigh-tasgaidh ‘a museum’ and taigh- staile ‘a distillery’. Watson’s dictionary contains much modern ter- minology throughout and the Gaelic learner who has mastered the contents of this dictionary should have a adequate working vocabu- lary of the language. It is a well-established fact that dictionaries of Scottish Gaelic have influenced (see my comments on Dwelly’s phytonymy above). The reverse is also true. A number of apparent Hibernicisms can be seen in this dictionary, for example, Eilbheiseach ‘Swiss’, gineadair ‘an electrical generator’ (gineadair in Dwelly means ‘parent’), iris ‘a magazine’, poblachd ‘a republic’, teicneolaiche, ‘a technologist’ and sòisealta ‘social’. This book is a welcome addition to the growing number of mod- ern Scottish Gaelic dictionaries.

N. J. A. WILLIAMS An Coláiste Ollscoile, Baile Átha Cliath